Well they're very strict parents with harsh punishments.
Advertisement
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:18 pm
by Gim » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:18 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Gim wrote:I am assuming we are talking about Christianity?
Imposing restrictions on food eating is preposterous in that God tells us in an early part of Genesis that a man should subdue all creatures. I cannot post the verse because I am on mobile. My apologies.
No this is a hypothetical religious code
I'm actually not aware of any religion that disallows fish-eating, they might exist though
by Blakullar » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:20 pm
The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:Blakullar wrote:No to all questions provided. Suddenly declaring food 'unclean' with the only evidence of uncleanliness being a thousand-year old piece of paper, and then banning your child from eating it on that basis, is on an entirely new level of stupid.
Actually no things like this aren't created within an instant.
(Example) The Jains didn't decide to adopt veganism within a fortnight. So I fail to see how it could possibly be stupid.
by Novsvacro » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:22 pm
by USS Monitor » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:26 pm
Blakullar wrote:No to all questions provided. Suddenly declaring food 'unclean' with the only evidence of uncleanliness being a thousand-year old piece of paper, and then banning your child from eating it on that basis, is on an entirely new level of stupid.
by The Hobbesian Metaphysician » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:28 pm
Novsvacro wrote:No child is logical enough to comprehend religion, and so you might as well be forcing the kid to swallow penis enlargement pills from Ron Jeremy for all it's worth.
by Lunatic Goofballs » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:28 pm
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:35 pm
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Do you see any difference between a religious restriction on a certain food because it's "unclean" despite all evidence to the contrary and a religious restriction on a certain food because the animal it comes from is 'sacred', which cannot be empirically proven one way or the other?
by The Hobbesian Metaphysician » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:39 pm
In-outheart wrote:But it is nutritious....
by Urran » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:49 pm
The Blood Ravens wrote: How wonderful. Its like Japan, and 1950''s America had a baby. All the racism of the 50s, and everything else Japanese.
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Oct 26, 2015 1:08 pm
by Pope Joan » Mon Oct 26, 2015 1:13 pm
by Gauthier » Mon Oct 26, 2015 1:17 pm
by Rusozak » Mon Oct 26, 2015 1:30 pm
by Nocturnalis » Mon Oct 26, 2015 1:37 pm
by Australian rePublic » Mon Oct 26, 2015 1:46 pm
by Gauthier » Mon Oct 26, 2015 1:48 pm
by Australian rePublic » Mon Oct 26, 2015 1:57 pm
by Trollgaard » Mon Oct 26, 2015 2:00 pm
by Gauthier » Mon Oct 26, 2015 2:01 pm
Trollgaard wrote:I see nothing wrong with the OPs scenario. It is the right of the parent to set the rules their children follow.
by Trollgaard » Mon Oct 26, 2015 2:05 pm
by Gauthier » Mon Oct 26, 2015 2:08 pm
Trollgaard wrote:Gauthier wrote:
Unless of course it's Muslims families banning pork consumption, in which case cue the 180 Spin.
Who said that? Muslims are free to ban eating pork in their own families. Just not for everyone. Same goes for any religion. They are free to forbid people of their faith from eating x, but it should not be against the law of the land to eat x for everyone.
by Diopolis » Mon Oct 26, 2015 2:09 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Corporate Collective Salvation, Google [Bot], HISPIDA, Ineva, Jewish Partisan Division, Neo-Hermitius, Singaporen Empire, Stellar Colonies, Tarsonis, The Jamesian Republic, Tremia
Advertisement