"Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin"

So you stick with your "strong evidence" (which requires a deal of faith) and I'll stick with mine. You make it clear to me why the Word says "don't cast your pearls before swine." You even bolster my faith!

 

Sorry but your failures of reading comprehension are not justified by taking a position unsupported by your link.

And just to give your post a tiny bit of intellectual honesty it so needs, no one said anything about hitting a small child, nor did anyone say that all adults are capable of knowing how hard they hit a child. Nor did anyone say that no adult ever disciplined a child when in a negative emotional state of mind

In fact all your inane quibbles can be equally applied to adults who inflict emotional distress on children with possibly equal or worse long term effects.

All you are really argueing is that some peopke should not be allowed to propagate which is an obvious given.

 

That pearls for swine verse is a perfect example of Christianity trying to demonize non-Christians for not agreeing. That is an important part to brainwashing and indoctrination. This perverse pride in faith without any evidence is another clear sign of indoctrination and we see this in cults and North Korea too. You have been brainwashed. Kudos to whoever brainwashed you. They did a great job.

If evidence requires great deal of faith and isn't much better than faith, then why do we use evidence for political discussions or criminal cases? Evidence by definition are convincing signs that something is true, and it is requires a lot of blind faith, then it isn't evidence.

People use faith in three ways. The first definition of faith is belief in things unseen which is in the bible. But belief in things unseen can be based on evidence. For example, we can judge guilt or innocence based on physical evidence even if there are no living eyewitnesses. The second definition is faith based on justified trust. If you go to a doctor and he has done a great job, then you trust him because he has a good track record. The signs that he has a good track record is evidence so this type of faith really is based on evidence. The last definition is blind faith, or faith without any kind of justification or evidence. I contend that Christian faith really is the third type because there is no evidence of any kind that can earn trust.

 

The whole point of requiring more evidence is to requires less faith. The more evidence you require before believing the less faith you require. The fact that this sort of complete non sequitur "[bolsters] your faith" isn't encouraging for the veracity of your beliefs.

 

When children are raised closely from day one, there shouldn't be any need for physical discipline. A respectful, observant, energetic, and engaged parent has far more 'control' over a child, than does the disconnected parent who occasionally uses physical punishment.

 

To the power of 10. This is the ONLY way to do it.

 

That isn't perfection. That's the bare minimum.

 

Faith is a gift. Some have it, some don"t. I could share many examples of why I have faith, but you are so convinced....it would be a waste of time.

 

Faith in things shown the be reliable is a gift. Faith in things with no evidence of reliability is foolishness.

 

I hate country music so much. Just a bunch of fake cowboys. Sorry.

 

I get your drift, but I would point out that there is scriptural support for the idea of blind faith, quite apart from the derisive sense in which atheists generally use the term.

As for blindness more generally, I'd say theists generally at least have a clue about their own, whereas atheists generally think they have x-ray vision.

 

I'm with you on that one. Where are the real country-western singers? I guess the likes of Glenn Campbell, Charlie Rich and Lynn Anderson ruined it for everybody. I say bring back Charlie Pride, Tammy Wynette, and Hank Wiliams.

 

Faith is no "gift". Rain is a gift, faith is the voluntary surrender of logic.

 

Evidence DOES NOT require faith. Evidence supersedes faith. Faith, on the other hand, is simply the sour grapes attitude of someone who does not understand the evidence. Faith is for the lazy of mind.

 

What you have is complete arrogance. Life WILL bring you down a notch or two.

 

I do not think that accepting ever-increasing knowledge (based upon fact) thus rendering what we know today as being unenlightened tomorrow, can be called "arrogant". Arrogant is the man who thinks he knows more than those who have already proven their work and thinks that through faith (against fact) is an extraterrestrial "gift" afforded to only a few members of mankind.

In other words, your notion of "arrogance" is twisted
180° out of kilter.

 

That you need to deflect to emotional abuse exposes the vapidness of your position when it comes to physical abuse which you de facto conceded on all points.

Denying that small children are physically abused is disingenuous. The infant is crying and the mother is overwrought from sleep deprivation and coping with a restless child. That is why there is well known medical diagnosis called Shaken Baby Syndrome. Not only does it cause severe brain damage but it can even result in the death of the child.

 

Your notion of "fact" is based on the premise you have the ability to know everything. That your understanding has no end. That you. yourself is a god. That is the epitome of what arrogance is all about. Pride always goes before a fall. What is challenging to others is that those, like you, have an elitist attitude that carries out the charade, that you know what is best for us all.

 

Perhaps you do not understand English.

Accepting what man has proven today but understanding that we know less than we will know tomorrow CANNOT be called "arrogance" or "knowing everything". It is the exact opposite. Arrogance and thinking you know everything is to ignore all of the facts and believe (have faith) in superstition ..... exactly what you are doing.

At my age, I can 'pass' any day now and I am prepared for all events whether it be the kingdom of Abraham, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Zen, Hare Krishna, Moony's Goonies, Wacko Waco, or the Holy Order of the Steel-Belted Huarache. You are betting on a hobby horse that won't even make it out of the gate and you have no Plan B. You'll have to eat my dust but it's your own choice.

I deal in facts, you deal in superstition:

 

This challenge to be diverted here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/are-there-logical-fallacies-in-christianity.552366/

 

No the fact that you cannot actually defend your position and have to keep moving the goal posts to idiocy like " shaken children" proves you have no case against properly administrated spankings.

 

Well yes but of course that has no relevence to the actual discussion.

 

..nor any relevance to observable reality..

 

Are you really going to pretend your observable reality has any relevence to the factual universe?