Christian and Athiest in the same house!

[AbAbber2k]

Both of my parents came from moderate Christian families (not regular church goers, but believed in god), neither ever spoke of religion negatively towards me and I was already well entrenched in my beliefs (Atheism) before High School. The OP's son has already been exposed to the church, there's no reason to force him to continue to go because then he'll just resent his parents.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309
The reason isn't just spiritual. For better or worse, Christian values are an enormous part of Western culture. Whether one agrees with them or not, it's vital to understand them well if one is to understand mainstream America.

You can receive a far more accurate accounting of that from some good history classes than you ever will from a church. Also, the only useful thing I can see picking up is as a mirror to show just how UNCHRISTIAN America is in basically every way possible.

Don't confuse the map with the territory.

OMG that's an AWESOME PHRASE!!!

Can I borrow that for some essays in the future? Actually I'll use it anyway, I just wanted to appear polite for a change to keep people guessing.

Seriously though, do you know where that phrase comes from?

And to address your point, that's why I said good, and some, instead of just one history class. Being 'in' something, while it provides an experience, also provides a narrow and biased view of the thing. The study of a thing (when done correctly) provides a much broader and less slanted picture. You couldn't possibly accurately convey what went on in Iran with the coup just by being in Iran or America during it. You have to have all the compiled resources to explain how America overthrew a budding and grateful democracy in order to support empirialism and capital gain for elites.

I agree everyone should go to all sorts of different churches a few times for the experience...just don't think you're learning anything about what's really going on by doing so.

I appreciate the lecture on American imperialism and the proper use of philosophical cliches. Since I'm usually on the other side of these types of arguments I must confess this is all a bit awkward. I will defer to your obviously superior education and intelligence from here on out. However, let me clarify. The "experience" of Christianity is exactly what I want my kids to have. They will have the rest of their lives to learn the history of the Evil Christian White Male, and I'm sure they will. What they do with their experience and knowledge is up to them.

I can understand what you're saying. I've just had such horrible experiences throughout my life that I'm not willing to risk the bad to gain the good. I have no problem with my daughter becoming a Christian, either for real or just for the experience. I'd just prefer she be at a higher stage of development when she begins.

So any idea where that phrase comes from? I could research it, but I'm neck deep in research papers right now. 8-(

It's a basic concept of philosophy that boringly goes back a couple hundred years. It's also a central tenet of neuro-linguistic programming, which is a sort of pop-culture study of mind control rooted in the chronic inability of philosophers and psychologists to pick up chicks.

More importantly, it was a phrase my ex-girlfriend (Phd, Philosophy, Fordham) used to use in arguments to tie my brain into knots.

edit: Kidding aside, this from Wikipedia, bolds mine:

The expression "the map is not the territory" first appeared in print in a paper that Alfred Korzybski gave at a meeting of the American Mathematical Society in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1931: [2]

A) A map may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the structure of the terrritory...
C) A map is not the territory.
It is used as a premise in Korzybski's General Semantics, and in neuro-linguistic programming.

This concept also occurs in the discussion of exoteric and esoteric religions. Exoteric concepts are concepts which can be fully conveyed using descriptors and language constructs, such as mathematics. Esoteric concepts are concepts which cannot be fully conveyed except by direct experience. For example, a person who has never tasted an apple will never fully understand through language what the taste of an apple is. Only through direct experience - eating an apple - can that experience be fully understood.

Lewis Carroll, in Sylvie and Bruno (1889), made a somewhat related point humorously with his description of a fictional map that had "the scale of a mile to the mile." A character notes some practical difficulties with such a map and states that "we now use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does nearly as well."

David Foster Wallace's novel Infinite Jest has a scene in which the students at Enfield Tennis Academy confuse the map with the territory while playing the game Eschaton, resulting in a breakdown of the structure of the game, mass confusion, and several injuries.

Awesome, thanks. It really is one of the best phrases I've heard in years.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309
The reason isn't just spiritual. For better or worse, Christian values are an enormous part of Western culture. Whether one agrees with them or not, it's vital to understand them well if one is to understand mainstream America.

You can receive a far more accurate accounting of that from some good history classes than you ever will from a church. Also, the only useful thing I can see picking up is as a mirror to show just how UNCHRISTIAN America is in basically every way possible.

Don't confuse the map with the territory.

OMG that's an AWESOME PHRASE!!!

Can I borrow that for some essays in the future? Actually I'll use it anyway, I just wanted to appear polite for a change to keep people guessing.

Seriously though, do you know where that phrase comes from?

And to address your point, that's why I said good, and some, instead of just one history class. Being 'in' something, while it provides an experience, also provides a narrow and biased view of the thing. The study of a thing (when done correctly) provides a much broader and less slanted picture. You couldn't possibly accurately convey what went on in Iran with the coup just by being in Iran or America during it. You have to have all the compiled resources to explain how America overthrew a budding and grateful democracy in order to support empirialism and capital gain for elites.

I agree everyone should go to all sorts of different churches a few times for the experience...just don't think you're learning anything about what's really going on by doing so.

I appreciate the lecture on American imperialism and the proper use of philosophical cliches. Since I'm usually on the other side of these types of arguments I must confess this is all a bit awkward. I will defer to your obviously superior education and intelligence from here on out. However, let me clarify. The "experience" of Christianity is exactly what I want my kids to have. They will have the rest of their lives to learn the history of the Evil Christian White Male, and I'm sure they will. What they do with their experience and knowledge is up to them.

I can understand what you're saying. I've just had such horrible experiences throughout my life that I'm not willing to risk the bad to gain the good. I have no problem with my daughter becoming a Christian, either for real or just for the experience. I'd just prefer she be at a higher stage of development when she begins.

So any idea where that phrase comes from? I could research it, but I'm neck deep in research papers right now. 8-(

It's a basic concept of philosophy that boringly goes back a couple hundred years. It's also a central tenet of neuro-linguistic programming, which is a sort of pop-culture study of mind control rooted in the chronic inability of philosophers and psychologists to pick up chicks.

More importantly, it was a phrase my ex-girlfriend (Phd, Philosophy, Fordham) used to use in arguments to tie my brain into knots.

edit: Kidding aside, this from Wikipedia, bolds mine:

The expression "the map is not the territory" first appeared in print in a paper that Alfred Korzybski gave at a meeting of the American Mathematical Society in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1931: [2]

A) A map may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the structure of the terrritory...
C) A map is not the territory.
It is used as a premise in Korzybski's General Semantics, and in neuro-linguistic programming.

This concept also occurs in the discussion of exoteric and esoteric religions. Exoteric concepts are concepts which can be fully conveyed using descriptors and language constructs, such as mathematics. Esoteric concepts are concepts which cannot be fully conveyed except by direct experience. For example, a person who has never tasted an apple will never fully understand through language what the taste of an apple is. Only through direct experience - eating an apple - can that experience be fully understood.

Lewis Carroll, in Sylvie and Bruno (1889), made a somewhat related point humorously with his description of a fictional map that had "the scale of a mile to the mile." A character notes some practical difficulties with such a map and states that "we now use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does nearly as well."

David Foster Wallace's novel Infinite Jest has a scene in which the students at Enfield Tennis Academy confuse the map with the territory while playing the game Eschaton, resulting in a breakdown of the structure of the game, mass confusion, and several injuries.

Awesome, thanks. It really is one of the best phrases I've heard in years.

Unfortunately, no one can be ... "told" ... what the Matrix is.

You have to see it for yourself.

- M4H

 

[Aquaman]

watch the nested quotes

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Kanalua]

You didn't see this coming? wow...

 

[JLGatsby]

Wands, MFH, cut down your quotes. Not everyone has a floor to ceiling monitor.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: SampSon
People of religion are always extremely offended when someone doesn't agree with them. That is one of their biggest shortcomings.

Not offended....frustrated. Having the courage and strength to have faith in something is so often equated to lacking intelligence by atheists and it's a cheap and unfair attack that belies their own insecurity. Not only that, but everything about Christianity and the Bible is screamingly logical if you approach it with an open mind.

I promise you I've spent more time contemplating this stuff than any five of you combined. There are plenty of geniuses who are Christians and you might find actual discussions with them to be rational and interesting. But atheists don't want that. The whole point in being an atheist is to feel superior to everybody else.......as if only believing in what you can see and feel is an indication of intelligence. My proof for that statement? Who the HELL stops seeking an answer to the question, is there's a God or not or why we're here? Maybe you just haven't heard a viable argument or read of a religeon you agree with. Agnosticism is one thing.....but actually stopping searching for that answer is JUST as much an act of faith as believing in God.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
But, like I pointed out in another post, you have age limits in America based on the idea that important decisions should be made by the individual only after they're able to. drinking, military, driving, voting, sex, etc.

Those "important decisions" are not personal decisions but ones that carry societal responsibility. Do you see that?

You cannot disconnect religion from society like that. Ones religious affiliations could GREATLY impact choices of sexuality, voting, possibly military choice, etc. I see your reasoning, but I think you're drawing a line where no clear line exists.

Let me try it ithis way: I can't vote for a particular political party candidate until I'm 18 because I have to be old enough to make those decisions with some knowledge and wisdom. You say who I vote for affects society as a whole. If I'm raised in the KKK or extremist Islamic or whatever, don't those religious choices also impact society? And yet, a parent can choose to put a child into one of those churches, even against their will, while a supergenius who gets a college degree in political science at age 16 can NOT vote. As a less extreme example, being a fundamentalist evangelical gives a strong likelihood that I will be voting Republican, thereby influencing society. Therefore joining a church is influencing society.

So what you're saying is that we should repeal the freedom of and from religion clause from the First Amendment because some religious views might cause some people to run contrary to your political views and agenda?

:roll:

Ummmm, not even remotely.

I'm pointing out that my claim that choice of religion is similar to choice of voting or drinking or having sex, is valid with regards to age limitations. I further went on to offer refutation of your concept of social impact being the deciding factor of differentiation.

Religion is a personal belief system based customs and tradition. Nothing more. You did not refute my "concept of social impact" (as you called it), you simply aired your political prejudices. Perhaps if you didn't involve your personal beliefs in the political sphere so strongly against other peoples' personal beliefs, they would not retaliate in kind (and vice versa forever, it does not matter who started it first).
In the meantime, your suggestion is not only ridiculous, it would be a complete violation of the 1st Amendment, with government dictating to parents what religions could be taught and to whom.
And shocking as this might be to you, most children of religious parents end up rebelling at some point against their parents and the religious beliefs that they were taught. Everyone figures it out on their own without your help.

Ok, I think one of us is lost, and it very well could be me. But let me try to recreate this:

I pointed out that there a number of things that require a person to be a certain age in order to participate in because the government feels they require a certain maturity level to make good choices, and argued that religious choice could be considered among them.

You said, and I quote;

Those "important decisions" are not personal decisions but ones that carry societal responsibility.

I refuted that, saying that the choice of religion also carries societal resposnsibility as it heavily influences many of the other things which have age limits, and I went on to show examples of how that could be true.

That's about all I see there. I don't know where you're drawing your accusations from.

I think religion is a LOT more than you state, and so does Weber, Durkheim, de Tocqeville, etc. There is a large body of evidence which describes the impact of religion on sociology and psychology and it shouldn't be ignored, which is what I felt your statement did.

I postulated a valid concern (I feel), and drew what I believe were valid parrallels. If you feel differently that's fine, but to dismiss the argument as 'airing political prejudices' is a disservice.

Therefore I don't find the ridiculousness of my argument. Would it violate the first ammendment? Yes, however as is often pointed out by scholars and the supreme court, children are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution without restriction. Hence the ability to perform warrantless searches of school lockers, prevent prayer in schools, enforce dress codes, minor curfews, and a few thousand other things.

I realize what you say about rebellion can be true, but that doesn't remove the impact being raised within religion has. It is arguably why so many people with no actual religious leanings claim religious association (which is where our polling numbers come from). It can be argued that it builds a similar distrust case as stories of the Easter bunny and so on. It usually prevents less biased exposure to that belief system from disinterested parties, not to mention almost always preventing one from exploring multiple religions in a fair way.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: smopoim86
I find it very intresting(almost crazy) that two ppl with such diff views could actually get along in a relationship. When i read the title of the post i figure the parents were one way and had a kid looking ito other beliefs.

I'm surprised so many people are surprised by it. With the extreme variety of belief systems represented in America it seems more unlikely to me that you'd find someone with matching views. I know I never have...though I've come close once. The only time it has ever been an issue with anyone I know is when one side of the relationship refuses to respect the others beliefs, which is always done 100% out of egocentrism. Only when people close off their minds and demand that their way is the ONLY way does it become an issue.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
I am a Christian, we will get that out of the way. As a Christian, it is our job to go out amongst the world an tell others of Christ. To neglect one's own children would be rediculous. Secondly, It is against Biblical doctrine to even marry someone like you. She should be ashamed. An atheist and Christian cant be together for exactly these reasons. I am personally glad she is trying, and hope she succeeds. Maybe it isn't fair, but its our doctrine.

And it is exactly why people like you are so despised, and where so many of the worlds problems come from. My own opinion of course, yours can, and will likely, vary.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: blackstealth007
DurocShark,

how can you be an atheist and believe that there is no God, when nature and everything in the universe proves that it was intelligentlly designed. I am only 17 years old, but i know when something happens by chance and when not. And me being here and everyone else was not a chance or was how we were made. I would rather believe in something that had proven facts than something based on speculation.

That isn't what this thread is about. At all.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: SampSon
People of religion are always extremely offended when someone doesn't agree with them. That is one of their biggest shortcomings.

Not offended....frustrated. Having the courage and strength to have faith in something is so often equated to lacking intelligence by atheists and it's a cheap and unfair attack that belies their own insecurity. Not only that, but everything about Christianity and the Bible is screamingly logical if you approach it with an open mind.

I promise you I've spent more time contemplating this stuff than any five of you combined. There are plenty of geniuses who are Christians and you might find actual discussions with them to be rational and interesting. But atheists don't want that. The whole point in being an atheist is to feel superior to everybody else.......as if only believing in what you can see and feel is an indication of intelligence. My proof for that statement? Who the HELL stops seeking an answer to the question, is there's a God or not or why we're here? Maybe you just haven't heard a viable argument or read of a religeon you agree with. Agnosticism is one thing.....but actually stopping searching for that answer is JUST as much an act of faith as believing in God.

Just wanted to chime in that I sort of agree with you in that one of my big issues with people who loudly and proudly claim to be atheist is that these same people refuse to ask, "What if?" In a sense, by default, that makes them less open minded to life, the universe, and everything when compared to people of faith. These people do like to hide behind a shroud of science (even though I would think few of them actual understand science in a fundamental way) and in doing so will have "faith" in things that are popularly associated with being scientific, but will instantly deride any attempt of having faith in what can be considered "religious."

Personally I think the intelligent and open-minded thing to do is be able to say "Maybe" as opposed to "No way."

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
People who teach their kids Christianity from a young age should be imprisoned for child abuse.

How dare you make me proud of you!!! I demand you take a view I find objectionable immediately so I can yell at you for it!

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
How dare you make me proud of you!!! I demand you take a view I find objectionable immediately so I can yell at you for it!

Poor people who have children should be imprisoned for child abuse.

Is that objectionable enough?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: natep

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DurocShark
Yesterday he finally said, "Why would I want to go listen to a bunch of people worshipping their fantasies?" I had to leave the room. That was a great line! But I didn't want to make my wife look like a fool by laughing.

You sound like a real jerk. Kids don't come up with stuff like that on their own and certainly wouldn't be so disrespectful to his mother unless he was following your example. Congrats.

He's 14. The kid can come up with that on his own.

Let's see....there's Protestant Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, Agnosticism, Catholicism..... Yup, it's just pure chance that he and his father happen to agree on atheism, despite the fact that something like 95% of people on this planet believe in a higher power his son came to this all on his own and believes it so strongly that he feels compelled to berate his mother over it. Maybe in some circumstances, but this guy is snickering at his wife when his son makes a very disrespectful comment towards her because his son made a rude remark he agreed with.......then posts to hundreds of people about it.........that tells me a lot about his mentality....more than just what he says about himself.

ZING. He's got a point there.

Not much of one really. There's a tremendous body of research into the histories and origins of religion, which can reasonably explain the existence of those religions. There's also a large body of evidence about rebellion being about what you're running from, not what you're running to (push/pull). That would put the blame squarely on the mother. I'm not saying that IS the case, only that there is an equally valid argument for it.

He DOES have a point about respect, but we've already covered the likelihood of that when being browbeat over religious choice. Not to mention when dealing with a teenager. Rebellion happens. It'll happen more if you force something on someone that they don't believe in.

 

[Doom Machine]

childeren should not have to go to church or learn anything about god till their closer to a preteen, cause teaching young childeren things like that is more or less a form of brainwashing, thier alot more likely to keep on believing those things tought early on..not all the time but more often than not, if you tell them about the beliefs when thier old then they can decide right then if thats something applicable to them.

dont get the wrong idea about brainwashing but technically it can be anything taught thats true or false that persuades one to view your opinion...forcing childerent to view your personal opinion without discussing other perspectives and opinions to give them options is completely wrong and is in fact brainwashing

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Could you please tell us why, oh great troll of ATOT?

Teaching small children that the vast majority of the world population is doomed for eternal punishment because they did not believe in a set of beliefs that provides no proof, ill logic, and vague references is very harmful.

What kind of person are you raising if you teach them that your unproven beliefs are better/more accurate than someone else's unproven beliefs?

What kind of person are you raising by teaching them things that contradict science and logic?

What kind of person are you raising if you teach them are some people will burn in a fiery pit in hell just because they did not believe in an invisible man?

I could go on and on and on, but you get my point.

I used to be a devout Christian when I was a kid, I went to a Catholic school, did the whole shebang, became an atheist at 16, and I can say that's you cannot really understand how stupid Christianity is until you develop the courage to question it from an unbiased perspective.

Oooooooh, didn't expect an intelligent response from Sir-Troll-A-Lot, did ya? Well you got one.

And regarding my first post on this thread, it was more tounge in cheek. I don't really think we should imprison people for what they believe. But I do think forcing religion onto a kid is "child abuse" although it should not be against the law.

DAMN YOU!!! There you go again! I ought to file a lawsuit for infringing on my right to find you abhorrent. STOP MAKING SENSE!

 

[MarxUNR]

.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Could you please tell us why, oh great troll of ATOT?

Teaching small children that the vast majority of the world population is doomed for eternal punishment because they did not believe in a set of beliefs that provides no proof, ill logic, and vague references is very harmful.

What kind of person are you raising if you teach them that your unproven beliefs are better/more accurate than someone else's unproven beliefs?

What kind of person are you raising by teaching them things that contradict science and logic?

What kind of person are you raising if you teach them are some people will burn in a fiery pit in hell just because they did not believe in an invisible man?

I could go on and on and on, but you get my point.

I used to be a devout Christian when I was a kid, I went to a Catholic school, did the whole shebang, became an atheist at 16, and I can say that's you cannot really understand how stupid Christianity is until you develop the courage to question it from an unbiased perspective.

And your example just totally defeats your original point. Kids should be exposed to things, even if the parents or the child don't necessarily agree with it so they can experience it, learn it, then decide for themselves. I am a card-carrying scientist (analytical/research chemistry) but I also think religion should be taught in school so students can learn how to analyze different modes of thinking and be aware of various lifestyles, regardless if they agree with it or not.

It's called critical thinking.

Just be clear that you have to study from without as well as within. And study means various exposures, not just one. So having a kid join the same church as the parents and go to it (excuse the pun) religiously would be defeating to your argument. I agree with what you say, just clarifying.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: natep

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DurocShark
Yesterday he finally said, "Why would I want to go listen to a bunch of people worshipping their fantasies?" I had to leave the room. That was a great line! But I didn't want to make my wife look like a fool by laughing.

You sound like a real jerk. Kids don't come up with stuff like that on their own and certainly wouldn't be so disrespectful to his mother unless he was following your example. Congrats.

He's 14. The kid can come up with that on his own.

Let's see....there's Protestant Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, Agnosticism, Catholicism..... Yup, it's just pure chance that he and his father happen to agree on atheism, despite the fact that something like 95% of people on this planet believe in a higher power his son came to this all on his own and believes it so strongly that he feels compelled to berate his mother over it. Maybe in some circumstances, but this guy is snickering at his wife when his son makes a very disrespectful comment towards her because his son made a rude remark he agreed with.......then posts to hundreds of people about it.........that tells me a lot about his mentality....more than just what he says about himself.

ZING. He's got a point there.

You're just jealous my kid thinks on his own.

You are dodging the issue. Nice sidestep. :roll:

Yeah, since you're trying to insult me and I refuse to be baited.

Not trying to insult you. Just trying to get you to own up to the fact that the kid did not come up with this on his own.

It's unlikely anyone ever comes up with anything entirely on their own, that isn't the point. The point is you cannot necessarily establish a direct causal relationship to the father. Contributing, probably, but even that not necessarily because MANY MANY MANY kids of devoutly religious parents choose atheism/agnosticism.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: SampSon
People of religion are always extremely offended when someone doesn't agree with them. That is one of their biggest shortcomings.

Not only that, but everything about Christianity and the Bible is screamingly logical if you approach it with an open mind.

I promise you I've spent more time contemplating this stuff than any five of you combined.

There are plenty of geniuses who are Christians and you might find actual discussions with them to be rational and interesting. But atheists don't want that.

The whole point in being an atheist is to feel superior to everybody else.......as if only believing in what you can see and feel is an indication of intelligence.

Agnosticism is one thing.....but actually stopping searching for that answer is JUST as much an act of faith as believing in God.

I disagree.

I absolutely refute that. It's entirely probable that you have matched or even exceeded some of our studies to some degree, but many of us are just as dedicated to the quest as you (and perhaps even more so).

You're imposing your view of atheists upon them. Don't lump them together, and don't generalize.

Now you're just being an ignorant ass again.

On that last point, we agree.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
How dare you make me proud of you!!! I demand you take a view I find objectionable immediately so I can yell at you for it!

Poor people who have children should be imprisoned for child abuse.

Is that objectionable enough?

*sigh* no, not really. Though without a working definition of poor it's too subjective to say for certain. While I don't agree, it's a defensible argument. I try not to argue against things that can be represented as valid...I win more arguments that way.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Sending your child to church isn't what I would call total brainwashing, especially if there is also "brainwashing" from the other side to counter it. We are subjected to science class and the sciences on TV all the time, even when we are young. So in essence, sending your child to church is like sending your kid to science class, as they get to hear both sides of the story. My two cents.

And Sampson, I don't get offended AT ALL if someone doesn't disagree with my views. However, I get annoyed if people call me an idiot for my own belief system.

 

[classy]

Truthfully your wife made a mistake. No matter how you think or feel, that is your right and it doesn't make you a bad person, but as a christian she should not have married you. Many people think its ok, but its not. Do not be unequally yoked.

 

[JS80]

Consider yourself lucky for being saved because of your wife's beliefs.