As (with the above) you're doubling down on the "child abuse and neglect" charge, the question about proper legal sanction remains. Fine, incarceration, foster care - what are your thoughts?

Answer the question, imo.

The authors of holy blood, holy grail wrote another book, I can't remember the name of that is pretty interesting on the topic. Give it a read.

As t the second part of his post, I think he was referring to the Catholic Church at the time the New Testament was written, not the actual time of Jesus' life.

Ok, so:

Neither of them ever held a chair, let alone one that would qualify as being "acclaimed". Just one of them barely qualifies even nominally as being a scholar. So unless more is forthcomming, Imma call bull**** on this:

"But believing Jesus, who by all accounts was a typical person, making meager wages with a relatively small following, was the son of god is laughable based on empirical evidence compiled by the most acclaimed religious scholars."

Re the 2nd: This would make even less sense. I'd like some cites about the "perceived abuses the Roman Church were inflicting upon commoners, taxing excessively without representation at the time" from the christian church in the 2nd century, given that Christianity at that time wasn't a religio licita and therefore obv. had no taxing authority of any kind.

Given they got the first book so wrong why should anyone read the other

You like to hide behind this. I think it's quite appropriate to discuss those things here because it helps to provide a broader context within which to understand your perspectives. As I've noted before, you have a tendency to treat "religion" as a special class of beliefs with special rules that somehow don't apply to any other mode of human thought. This is absurd.

Please expand on your viewpoint for non-religious contexts. Is it child abuse to raise a child with "democratic" values (or even "Democratic" values)?

In the US, the Children’s Television Act (CTA) puts in place controls on how companies are allowed to market to children because children under the age of 8 are considered "especially vulnerable because they lack the cognitive skills to understand the persuasive intent of television and online advertisements. The new stealth techniques can also undermine the consumer defenses even of older children and adolescents." (Quote from here).

For 'television ' substitute 'religion' and then understand that I don't see a difference between this type of unethical activity and how religions 'market' to children and yet they are treated entirely differently. Anyone who teaches a child that one religion is true and the rest false, is trying to ensure that the child 'buys' that religion when older. How is that not considered unethical?

Would I like to see parents fined or incarcerated? No, of course not. I'd like to see a world in which children are educated and allowed to choose on issues like this without there needing to be a punitive system in place to ensure that it happens. Were one to exist, it would be entirely unworkable in practice and would probably have a similar effect on religious recruitment that the war in Iraq did for Al quaida.

The book I was referring to was the "Messianic Legacy" and while it covers jesus, it also covers the general history of the region at and around the time of Jesus and shortly afterwards. It's pretty interesting to see the historical references rather than what's in the bible. It was an interesting read and I thought worthwhile. Your opinion could vary.

I don't agree, I think religion is a special case.

I find that objectionable too, yes.

Do you think that "unethical" implies "child abuse"?

Also, substitute 'school' for 'television' and explain to me how schools teaching that various statements are 'true' and that others are 'false' is an unethical activity and constitute child abuse.

Please expand.

No. Is it 'child abuse'?

Also, if I replace "democratic values" with "egalitarian values" do you still find it objectionable?

Ok, so you're using a term that has clear legal and moral implication, yet "of course not" want it used that way. Comparatively, I might call slapping my cheek "murder" ('every time I get slapped, I die a little inside'), yet recoil at the thought of having someone sentenced for 25yrs for slapping my cheek. "Of course not".

This is the same ******ed **** you pull with "indoctrination", "delusion" and so on. Snap out of it. It's pathetic.

Have you read the Messianic Legacy or looked at the bibliography in the back? It's an interesting compilation of research regarding history at that time. I dare say true history is more accurate than what's in the bible given the obvious historical bias and corruption displayed by the catholic church over the last 1500 years.

Like they got the first so badly wrong and fell for the whole spoofed list that they lost any credibility and so I'm not sure I can find space for anything else from them.

to be fair, if someone was divorced and their ex tried to join a cult with their child, there'd be a pretty strong case to argue in court for custody of said child. There isn't much of a difference between religion and a cult. They both believe in their leaders based on faith, not provable facts or science, they live their lives largely based on what those leaders say or what is in the books the leaders write.

Applying the legal standard of "custody of said child" and then applying the non-legal standard of "not much difference between religion and a cult" is awful reasoning.

shrug they are completely different books. I don't care if you read it or not but just saying "they fell for this" in another book is not necessarily a reason to dismiss every single other sentence they ever wrote, and it's a decent compilation of history at that time without reading a bunch of other books separately.

By the same token, we all know the world wasn't created in 7 days. I think that's in Genesis, should you religious types stop reading the bible after the first chapter of genesis? How about Eve being created from a rib, GMAFB.

If someone trusts you unquestioningly and you take advantage of that to influence them one way the other on something, is that not an abuse of their trust? Has an abuse not occurred?

For example?

If schools abandoned ToE and in it's place started teaching ID and Creationism, as fact, would you have any issue with that? If so, what form would it take?

I dare say that is not the least bit relevant, as the vast majority of christians don't treat the NT as a history text book. Given that you bring it up, I guess we can also assume that you're somewhat fuzzy as to the differences between both. Might I suggest you take up a text book about the NT? Thirdly, any historian will erupt in hysterical fits of laughter at your mentioning of "true history", but that just as an aside.

And this is what wiki has to say about both books:

Why would I pick up a book like that. If I want to read fiction, I take Dan Brown - it's similarly shoddy on facts, but at least it gets me over a plane flight without elevating my blood pressure due to all the historical bs.

the above isn't really an argument but hey...how about this. There's NO difference between religion and a cult at it's source. How's that?

So you require an answer from me, which you got, and then completely ignore my question to you?

Ok......

And you really have no idea what you're talking about. There are actually definitions what constitutes cults. Look those up, pls.

the first part of the Messianic legacy is around history at the time of Jesus and the founding of the church. I don't give a rats about the priory of sion crap....the history stuff I found interesting.

How stupid are you going to get with this? Is it "CHILD ABUSE" as per the legal definition YOU AFFIRMED and have been expanding upon and defending? At this point, I don't even care whether you want to think of it as "abuse of a child" as a different interpretation of the term "child abuse" (even though that's equally stupid -- surely you would affirm that parents should have influence over their children and that influence can be based on trust).

Take your pick. Under the paragraph given above, it would appear that teaching them *ANYTHING* would count.

I would object. But I wouldn't object because of anything having to do with "influence" and "abuse of trust".

I spent enough time studying history to not really want to spend time on books written by people responsible for such discredited stuff.

You may interpret this how you like but I'm not making claims about the accuracy of the bible. If someone wants to talk to you about biblical inerrancy then you can point out whatever you wish and ask to be given a break. I'm not making any claims other than to say people who have produced **** history don't get on my to be read list.