Kirk Cameron says don't explain... train. Because religion is about obedience.

[Cancel 2016.2]

STFU. Here you go with your same tired thread derailment tactics. I gave you an entire thread the last time and showed how you ALWAYS reject science.

Yet you failed every single time I asked to provide ONE example of where I deny science. You can never come up with ONE example, yet you proclaim that I always reject science. You are a liar and a coward.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Strings idea of criticizing Christians for their ideas...

"Christians are mostly a bunch of idiots that are subservient to the state, their mommies and daddies."

 

[Granule]

It makes sense coming from Cameron, though. Questions lead to learning. Learning leads to even more critical thinking. And that never ends well for anyone who promotes Creationism.

I think it's awesome. I love teaching the "educated" about their ignorance.

 

[Timshel]

I just listed all your ad hom attacks. So stop crying. I again did address a comment you made in the OP. You are completely delusional to pretend otherwise.

Christians preach a rejection of reason?
...Whaaahhhhwhahhh!.

You did not, dummy. You listed some of my criticisms of Christian thought and how it impacts them. Ad hom means against the man. If one argues that the assertion of another should be rejected due to some unrelated personal attack then that is an ad hom. That's what you are doing. Ad hom is not simply a personal attack.

I have not addressed any individual other than you. I have criticized a body of ideas.

They absolutely do preach a rejection of reason. The article shows that. They want their children to learn obedience.

The point about the moral defense of the dead is played out elsewhere, specifically I was thinking about the silly defense of Lee. But, that's what obedience to the Bible is all about anyway.

 

[Timshel]

Strings idea of criticizing Christians for their ideas...

"Christians are mostly a bunch of idiots that are subservient to the state, their mommies and daddies."

Exactly, I am glad you are starting to catch on, moron.

You took it out of the context of the supporting arguments (i.e., the rejection of reason in parenting and the insistence on the importance of teaching children to obey), but that is because you are dishonest and without a backbone.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You did not, dummy. You listed some of my criticisms of Christian thought and how it impacts them. Ad hom means against the man. If one argues that the assertion of another should be rejected due to some unrelated personal attack then that is an ad hom. That's what you are doing. Ad hom is not simply a personal attack.

I have not addressed any individual other than you. I have criticized a body of ideas.

They absolutely do preach a rejection of reason. The article shows that. They want their children to learn obedience.

The point about the moral defense of the dead is played out elsewhere, specifically I was thinking about the silly defense of Lee. But, that's what obedience to the Bible is all about anyway.

No moron... Christians do not preach to reject reason. You finding one nutjob does not equate to Christians in general doing so. Stop being a little lying douche.

 

[Timshel]

No moron... Christians do not preach to reject reason. You finding one nutjob does not equate to Christians in general doing so. Stop being a little lying douche.

In general, yes, they do. Faith and revelation are not consistent with reason and/or the scientific method of acquiring and validating knowledge. When reason conflicts with faith most Christians choose faith and only after decades if not centuries will they relent. History has shown this repeatedly.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In general, yes, they do. Faith and revelation are not consistent with reason and/or the scientific method of acquiring and validating knowledge. When reason conflicts with faith most Christians choose faith and only after decades if not centuries will they relent. History has shown this repeatedly.

LMAO... ok String... he who rejects the scientific method of validating when life begins and instead tries to inject philosophy/feelings into the discussion. I guess we truly CAN label atheists like you just as you did to the Christians... you reject reason.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In general, yes, they do. Faith and revelation are not consistent with reason and/or the scientific method of acquiring and validating knowledge. When reason conflicts with faith most Christians choose faith and only after decades if not centuries will they relent. History has shown this repeatedly.

Also, you are being very loose with the 'they reject reason' line of crap.

 

[Canceled.2014.2]

In general, yes, they do. Faith and revelation are not consistent with reason and/or the scientific method of acquiring and validating knowledge. When reason conflicts with faith most Christians choose faith and only after decades if not centuries will they relent. History has shown this repeatedly.

Bingo! This forum has also shown that repeatedly....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Bingo! This forum has also shown that repeatedly....

This forum has shown atheists who do the same thing. When Science disagrees with their position... they abandon reason and run to the rhetoric they are taught to parrot.

to say Christians preach to abandon reason is still absurd. Like atheists, some abandon it at times... but he makes it sound like they are against reason in any case. A gross exaggeration. (and without reason)

 

[Phantasmal]

I think it's awesome. I love teaching the "educated" about their ignorance.

Please provide an example, I have never seen such a post and I would be very interested.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I really think this is why Christians are mostly a bunch of idiots that are subservient to the state, their mommies and daddies. Also, IMO, this is why they get so offended if you insult the dead, their traditions, morals and ignorant notions.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ever-ever-explain-anything-to-their-children/

Actor and Crocoduck-creating super-Christian Kirk Cameron is promoting a “great article” on his website that offers rather questionable advice for parents: Never explain things to your kids; just teach them to obey:

Children are not in need of lengthy, compelling explanations. What they are in need of is the understanding that God must be obeyed.​

…​

Explanations tend to focus on getting someone to agree with you. The logic for explanations runs something like this: If I can just get my children to understand the reason for my direction, then they will be more likely to follow my instruction. While this may sound like solid reasoning, it is not. Explanations are more consistent with gaining approval and winning arguments. Neither of these are appropriate goals for biblical parenting and can lead to anger in your children as Ephesians warns against.


​

The actual article, by Jay Younts, goes much further, stating that the no-explanations model of parenting should continue through kids’ teenage years:

Children from 6-12 must be encouraged to obey because they know this pleases God. Your discussions will be more involved than with young children, but again you are not trying to win their approval. You want them to grasp how important it is to trust God and the reliability of his word. This type of training will yield a conscience that is sensitive to the things of God.

​

It doesn’t take much insight to realize that teenagers and long explanations don’t go well together. Obedience with teenagers is to be primarily be focused on helping them see the value of following God because they love him and that God’s ways are the only ones that can be trusted. Your goal is to have conversations not explanations.


​

Because if there’s one thing teenagers know how to do, it’s obeying authority…

This is just awful advice, no matter how you slice it. Children need to learn how to question, how to reason, and how to think through the consequences of their actions. I know parents would love it if their kids obeyed their every word, but at some point, those kids also need to learn why you think the way you do. There are reasons for why they need to come home by a certain time, and why they should share their toys, and why they shouldn’t draw on the wall with crayons that go well beyond “Because I said so.” A well-reasoned explanation, at least in theory, should help them understand where you’re coming from and give them more of an incentive to follow your rules. Does it always work? Of course not. But it sure as hell has a better chance of succeeding than “Do what we say or else the Baby Jesus will cry.”

There’s a time and place for kids to listen to you without asking questions. That time and place sure as hell isn’t “always.”

It makes sense coming from Cameron, though. Questions lead to learning. Learning leads to even more critical thinking. And that never ends well for anyone who promotes Creationism.

​

 

[Timshel]

LMAO... ok String... he who rejects the scientific method of validating when life begins and instead tries to inject philosophy/feelings into the discussion. I guess we truly CAN label atheists like you just as you did to the Christians... you reject reason.

There is no scientific method on validating when life begins and there are differences of opinion on what it even is. When life begins IS a question for philosophy.

I don't reject reason at all. I reject your definition of when life begins as being at the point when a unique human genome is formed (or at fertilization, did you ever figure out which one you were going to go with) as do the biologists I sourced. You provided NOTHING to back up your claims.

You are just a lying scumbag who misrepresents the science.

 

[Canceled.2014.2]

There is no scientific method on validating when life begins and there are differences of opinion on what it even is. When life begins IS a question for philosophy.

I don't reject reason at all. I reject your definition of when life begins as being at the point when a unique human genome is formed (or at fertilization, did you ever figure out which one you were going to go with) as do the biologists I sourced. You provided NOTHING to back up your claims.

You are just a lying scumbag who misrepresents the science.

When life does begin (in terms of when it should be declared viable in terms of abortion) is indeed for philosophers and not for scientists.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

There is no scientific method on validating when life begins and there are differences of opinion on what it even is. When life begins IS a question for philosophy.

Thanks for proving my point. No, it is not a question for philosophy you moron. But do go on denying biology. Abandon reason!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

When life does begin (in terms of when it should be declared viable in terms of abortion) is indeed for philosophers and not for scientists.

That is complete nonsense. When a life is VIABLE in regards to whether it is MORAL to end that life... THAT is for philosophers. LIFE begins at conception. That is biological fact.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What I find is how the liberals, on this board, appear to be more concerned with religion, then those who support religion.
There have been way more threads started regarding how the liberals on this board feel that religion is wrong and yet I don't think I've seen many threads started that push for everyone becoming religious.

I wonder why that is.
Could it be that those who believe in Christianity are more comfortable in their beliefs, then those who don't believe.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't reject reason at all. I reject your definition of when life begins as being at the point when a unique human genome is formed (or at fertilization, did you ever figure out which one you were going to go with) as do the biologists I sourced. You provided NOTHING to back up your claims.

Except that I have... time and time again... but since you reject reason... you ignore it.

You are so unbelievably ignorant when it comes to biology, I can understand your confusion. Life begins at fertilization... that is when the two cells BEGIN to combine the DNA of the unique life. You seem to believe that because that combination takes roughly 12 hours for the genome to fully form that somehow negates when the life begins. The process of that unique life begins at fertilization, it continues on through the pregnancy, continues on through childhood, through the teen years and into young adulthood before we fully form.

But again, you reject reason and science and prefer 'philosophy'. Pretty similar to Christians.

 

[Timshel]

This forum has shown atheists who do the same thing. When Science disagrees with their position... they abandon reason and run to the rhetoric they are taught to parrot.

to say Christians preach to abandon reason is still absurd. Like atheists, some abandon it at times... but he makes it sound like they are against reason in any case. A gross exaggeration. (and without reason)

Bullshit. It's a matter of course for Christians. Aquinas spoke on the superiority of faith to reason. He was better than Augustine who brought his Platonism to Christianity, which claimed that knowledge was a just memory of the eternal/supernatural.

You are as usual attempting to create a strawman. I said they reject reason when it conflicts with faith. They don't simply preach unreason, which is what you are ridiculously trying to turn my statement into.