Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[DrNewGod]

While we're on the subject of religion, one thing i have seen over the years is many, many Christians admitting than what they believe is probably just a myth but they made the choice to keep identifying themselves as Christians and even to try to convince themselves that they still do believe in that stuff.

Which is truly something fascinating and who says so much about the amazing power of indoctrination at an early age. So, back on the topic of controversial opinion, here's one. No religion should ever be taught to anyone younger than at least 18.

Or it should be considered child abuse.

I'm an Agnostic, raised Southern Baptist, with Methodist leanings. I don't buy a literal interpretation, and notice that some of the behavior of prophets in the Old Testament sound as much like schizophrenia as they do revelation. However, while I'm unconvinced of the Divinity of The Christos, I do support the core message: pacifism, kindness, charity, and - above all - that the purpose of life is not measured by what we can eke out of the world, but how much better we make the world for others, especially those who need help the most.

So, I don't agree with your contention that religion should not be taught to children, but I do agree that Christian sects are teaching their children the wrong lessons.

[Starter Set]

So, I don't agree with your contention that religion should not be taught to children, but I do agree that Christian sects are teaching their children the wrong lessons.

Fair enough. But thing is, in my opinion, moral values can be learn elsewhere. You don't need religion for that. Any religion.

The main problem when religion is taught too soon is that it can become a psychological prison, a trap for the mind, from which it can be very difficult and even traumatic for a person to get away from. You can't think anymore outside of that box. Everything you see, you're going to analyze through the prism of your religious conditioning.

Though, i agree that is very less true with eastern religions/philosophies of course like Buddhism.

[DrNewGod]

Fair enough. But thing is, in my opinion, moral values can be learn elsewhere. You don't need religion for that. Any religion.

The main problem when religion is taught too soon is that it can become a psychological prison, a trap for the mind, from which it can be very difficult and even traumatic for a person to get away from. You can't think anymore outside of that box. Everything you see, you're going to analyze through the prism of your religious conditioning.

Though, i agree that is very less true with eastern religions/philosophies of course like Buddhism.

Yeah, all three of The Abrahamic faiths are built around heaping mounds of guilt. Especially where apostasy is concerned.

[ed2962]

Nobody really thinks there's no difference between men and women. It's not an actual "leftist" position.

[anyajenkins]

Well Homer has met God, but I think Lisa is at least agnostic.

Lisa's Buddhist and at one point dabbled in Wiccan, according to one of Bart's jokes.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

No religion should ever be taught to anyone younger than at least 18.

Or it should be considered child abuse.

What if it is taught as something cultural to learn about and not something to live by?

Yeah, all three of The Abrahamic faiths are built around heaping mounds of guilt. Especially where apostasy is concerned.

I'm a religious person, and I'm not taught to feel guilt for no good reason. Personally, I considered jumping off the faith train multiple times, but I'm attached to it because I find more reasons to stay than to leave. Whenever I see someone wronging something in my faith I look that topic up, and find reasons to disagree with that person's understanding.

[Starter Set]

What if it is taught as something cultural to learn about and not something to live by?

Thin line to walk on.

Anyway, i don't know if it's controversial but all those "i'm 2% Spanish, 3% Croatian, 2% Korean" DNA test are BS.

[Kirby101]

Thin line to walk on.

Anyway, i don't know if it's controversial but all those "i'm 2% Spanish, 3% Croatian, 2% Korean" DNA test are BS.

Absolutely. What is their sample set? What are they comparing it to. What part of the "Scottish" population do they have data for to compare your DNA? What is the "Scottish Gene" anyway. Total BS.

They have taken the science that tests general populations and tried to make it specific.

[Jack Dracula]

I'm an Agnostic, raised Southern Baptist, with Methodist leanings. I don't buy a literal interpretation, and notice that some of the behavior of prophets in the Old Testament sound as much like schizophrenia as they do revelation. However, while I'm unconvinced of the Divinity of The Christos, I do support the core message: pacifism, kindness, charity, and - above all - that the purpose of life is not measured by what we can eke out of the world, but how much better we make the world for others, especially those who need help the most.

So, I don't agree with your contention that religion should not be taught to children, but I do agree that Christian sects are teaching their children the wrong lessons.

The inference here seems to be that you wouldn't have been taught those lessons without having been brought up in the church. I'd argue that you were only receiving validation for lessons you were already learning from your parents and society in general. The church just takes credit for that.

Anyway, i don't know if it's controversial but all those "i'm 2% Spanish, 3% Croatian, 2% Korean" DNA test are BS.

It could be controversial if someone is using it as an excuse for making racist comments or reinforcing ethnic stereotypes.
"I'm 2% Spanish so it's OK if I make racist jokes about Mexicans."

[DrNewGod]

The inference here seems to be that you wouldn't have been taught those lessons without having been brought up in the church. I'd argue that you were only receiving validation for lessons you were already learning from your parents and society in general. The church just takes credit for that.

Actually, I don't give them credit. I was taught deference, dogma, and piety. But the core message I came to on my own, much later, after self-study of the scripture, and other sources, including history.

In fact, I'd said the exact opposite of what you attribute to me. I submit that you've misinterpreted what I've said based on one section of what I said rather than evaluating the whole. Come to think of it, that's Christianity's problem in a nutshell.

[Jack Dracula]

I do support the core message: pacifism, kindness, charity, and - above all - that the purpose of life is not measured by what we can eke out of the world, but how much better we make the world for others, especially those who need help the most.

So, I don't agree with your contention that religion should not be taught to children

These comments were where I got the inference from.

but I do agree that Christian sects are teaching their children the wrong lessons.

But, this is where you clear up my misconception. Sorry for misinterpreting your post.

The thing is though that I've encountered this line of thought from people of faith and agnostics before and I think it's a common reason for people raising their children in the church despite they themselves no longer believing. That the church is teaching children lessons they wouldn't normally learn from just being part of society.

[Tuck]

Thin line to walk on.

Anyway, i don't know if it's controversial but all those "i'm 2% Spanish, 3% Croatian, 2% Korean" DNA test are BS.

I watched someone check theirs on a Youtube channel. It didn't come up like that. It would more likely come up as "Iberian", "Slavic", etc.

The DNA is more traced to broader groups than the full ethnic distinctions we have. (And the percentages could probably get off over generations.)

[DrNewGod]

These comments were where I got the inference from.



But, this is where you clear up my misconception. Sorry for misinterpreting your post.

The thing is though that I've encountered this line of thought from people of faith and agnostics before and I think it's a common reason for people raising their children in the church despite they themselves no longer believing. That the church is teaching children lessons they wouldn't normally learn from just being part of society.

No worries. I take far too flowery long to get to the point

[dancj]

While we're on the subject of religion, one thing i have seen over the years is many, many Christians admitting than what they believe is probably just a myth but they made the choice to keep identifying themselves as Christians and even to try to convince themselves that they still do believe in that stuff.

My dad has on two separate occasions met vicars who admitted to him that they don't really believe, but keep doing the job because they agree with the morality it teaches.

Which is truly something fascinating and who says so much about the amazing power of indoctrination at an early age. So, back on the topic of controversial opinion, here's one. No religion should ever be taught to anyone younger than at least 18.

Or it should be considered child abuse.

I can't completely disagree.

I'm happier with parents teaching "this is what I believe" - but from what I can tell they tend to just state is as absolute truth.

[anyajenkins]

It could be that the parents, looking back to when they were kids, thought they got something of value out of church even if they don't quite 'believe' anymore. Like a sense of purpose, that there were reasons for things happening, even if they don't know exactly what. Heck, my parents never did Santa with me, it didn't really bother me. But when I mention that to their people, their like 'what! You never believed in Santa!' Like it's a great trasvesty, lol. Because even though they don't believe now, I guess they really liked believing in Santa as a kid.