Christian and Athiest in the same house!

[blackstealth007]

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

I guess it would be the same way for atheism... right? Or maybe any other religion or theory for that matter.

 

[SampSon]

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.

Frusturated? Frusturated that people don't believe what you do? Well, why don't you stick to your ultimate ideal of compassion and understand there are people who don't agree with you?

Again I must restate that I am not religious or athiest, so please don't approach this as if im at an opposing stance to you. I'm taking this as if the "you" words in your post refer to me. If you are, then you're just barking up the wrong tree. If you want to call me agnostic then be my guest, but I have my own beliefs.

I don't think that athiests want to be superior by nature, they just don't believe in god, why is that so incredibly hard to believe/understand? Can you fathom yourself not believing in jesus christ? Some/many people just do not believe in a higher power and I know it has absolutely nothing to do with ego. Many of these athiests are scientists and none of them ever stop asking the question "why are we here?", their entire lives are devoted to exploring that question. Except they explore it outside of the confines of a "religion", they have their own religion of "science". Stopping searching for god is an act of faith because that requires you to at one point believe in god and be searching for it.

You say I havn't read a viable argument or read of a religion I agree with. To be quite frank there is no religion on this planet that I'm ever going to "agree" with. I have my personal religion, I do not need a structured system to tell me how to believe. I've read the bible back and forth, while it's a good book with some great stories and philosophy, that's about as far as it goes for me.

I never equate lack of intelligence with belief in religion, but I cannot equate the belief in religion with courage. Though I can equate fear of mortality with belief in religion.

I could go on for a while but I really don't want to sit here and debate with someone entrenched in a structured religion, no offense, but it's not conducive to an open-minded or progressive discussion. You have your beliefs and I have mine, leave it at that.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: blackstealth007

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

I guess it would be the same way for atheism... right? Or maybe any other religion or theory for that matter.

That's the thing with atheists. Most don't actively want to force their beliefs on their kids, as stated in the OP. They are all for the children's choice to actively seek out religion and to weigh its pros and cons.

Religion requires a constant faith to subscribe to it whereas atheism just demands logic and reason.

 

[db]

There are almost 300 replies here--I'm not going to read them all.

It's the job of Christians to convert people.
Atheists don't have a job (tho some seek to convert).
This makes her active and you passive.
A confrontation was inevitable, and will continue since the kids are involved.
She believes they will suffer in eternal hell instead of enjoy eternal heaven.
Again, this makes her active, while you are passive.
No surprise there.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: hans030390
I'm thinking your son could have been a bit more respectful. I'm christian, and I respect other's beliefs, and I dont think she should be pushing the kids to believe anything. I dont think you should try putting anything on them either, which it sounds like you haven't.

The problem is that most Christian's can not see the perspective of the non-believer. As a Christian, you can not judge a non-believer by the same code of ethics that you have. And it is a fine line between telling someone who is willing to listen and proselytizing. I have a close friend that is stubborn and gets irritated whenever anyone talks about religion, so I choose not to talk about those things unless he brings them up. I pray for him, and try to treat him with as much respect as I can give, but that is it.

We don't have enough information to see if the wife was actually encouraging the son to go, or heavy handedly pushing the son to go (which it sounds like she was doing the latter).

One of my coworkers, she "preaches to everyone, and when she found out a coworker was lesbian, she judged her and said she was sinning (who isn't, and the person isn't even Christian <so no need to rebuke just point out that all people sin and are not able to be sinless> ). She is one of the people that people don't talk to, and gives Christians a bad name, but I am sure she is a "model" Christian in her own life. My coworkers know I am a believer, but they also know that I won't preach to them. Rather I will show them by action, and if they approach me about the subject I am more than able to talk about it.

I think I should point out that as Christians, we shouldn't be judging in the first place. That's God's job.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: purbeast0
also i agree with hans. it does sound pretty disrespectful. i personally am christian too and like hans, i don't push my beliefs on anyone.

from my experience, its typically people who do not really believe in any type of god who are the ones strongly forcing their opinions and beliefs on people, not the other way around. except in college, my freshman year, i had this roomate who was super christian and tried to get me to go to bible meetings and stuff. it really pissed me off how strong he pushed it.

That's great for you, but I've found in 99.9% of cases the exact opposite.

And 90% of those "strongly forcing" their Christian beliefs on others tend to be uber-conservative (read: not open-minded) Southern Baptists/Catholics. They give all Christians a bad name

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: 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.

the point of science class isnt to brainwash people against religion, its to teach SCIENCE: a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or* the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.

the purpose of a church, or other religious center, is to teach about the religion. they dont require facts and verification, they require faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

some people dont have a problem believing in science, which requires proof, and having faith in a religion, which does not.

i do have a problem with it, and would consider myself agnostic or probably, more accurately, apathetic.

Originally posted by: JS80
Consider yourself lucky for being saved because of your wife's beliefs.

another problem i have with the christian religion, and others, they all believe different things inside of one religion (various sects or denominations). i was NEVER taught that having a relative or wife or whatever that was saved meant *anything* to anyone else. which is drastically different from what you are saying. i was taught if you accept jesus, youre saved, if you dont, youre not, and if youre too young to "understand" (somehow most christians come to the conclusion that about 5 or 6-ish is old enough to understand all of this) then if you died youd go to heaven because you couldnt help but not be saved.

of course, ive also heard that if you "backslide" (for those not in the know, this is what most christians ive met call it when someone stops practicing christianity) youre as good as having never been "saved" and are doomed to hell; and ive heard people who believed that once saved, is always saved *no matter what*.

it was a number of things, including varying beliefs, absolute lack of logic, mass hypocrisy, a few select nutjobs, and a gut feeling that i had as far back as i can remember of "this is totally batshiat crazy" that caused me to stop going to church and practicing christianity.

 

[theeedude]

Shouldn't a Christian wife obey you like the Lord?
If so, tell her, none of that Christ talk at home, end of discussion.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Shouldn't a Christian wife obey you like the Lord?
If so, tell her, none of that Christ talk at home, end of discussion.

ROTFLMAO! Best post in the thread!

Too bad it would just be insulting. Because otherwise I'd *love* to throw that one out there!



EDIT: Oh, and from the truly faithful I know and call friends, she doesn't have to obey me as lord because I'm faithless. Too bad really.

Ya know, I should run this thread past Matt Slick and see what he says.

 

[l Xes l]

u married a christian.. at least u dont have worry about her being smarter than ya..

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: senseamp
Shouldn't a Christian wife obey you like the Lord?
If so, tell her, none of that Christ talk at home, end of discussion.

ROTFLMAO! Best post in the thread!

Too bad it would just be insulting. Because otherwise I'd *love* to throw that one out there!



EDIT: Oh, and from the truly faithful I know and call friends, she doesn't have to obey me as lord because I'm faithless. Too bad really.

Ya know, I should run this thread past Matt Slick and see what he says.

I don't think there is an "offer not valid for atheists" fineprint attached to that passage. So she has to obey you like the Lord or she's going to Hell. (at least in her head)

Also, I googled this:

And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

So don't worry, you are covered by her "insurance"

 

[GTaudiophile]

Damn, 4 pages @ 100 posts per page...and still going!

 

[db]

I think I should point out that as Christians, we shouldn't be judging in the first place. That's God's job.

Judge and punish! What's up with that? Like you said, it's God's job.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

I've always liked the way Robert Heinlein described the difference between a theist and an atheist, that being whether the person "takes his religion straight or chases it with soda."
IMO you really ought to consider that in light of your own arguments. If atheism were as enlightened as you think it is, you (as an atheist I can only assume) would not be threatened by the theists and seek to control by force how they raise their children, now would you?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80
Consider yourself lucky for being saved because of your wife's beliefs.

Why would the OP be saved because of his wife's beliefs? According to Paul, salvation is a gift from God bestowed to individuals (with no mention of married couples). Per Jesus, there is no marriage in Heaven. Are you making up that "literal translation" again?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

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.

When does believing in something that promises eternal life after death equate to courage and strength? I'd think that the opposite would be true. Athiesm and agnosticism offer...well they offer nothing beyond the life we have now (at least not with any certainty). Seems that questioning the existence of G-d and potentially getting excluded from the "good" list is a far riskier venture than just buying into the whole religion thing.

As an agnostic I don't really subscribe to either view, but thinking of yourself as being courageous for being religous seems to be stretching it a bit...

 

[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

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.

I've always liked the way Robert Heinlein described the difference between a theist and an atheist, that being whether the person "takes his religion straight or chases it with soda."
IMO you really ought to consider that in light of your own arguments. If atheism were as enlightened as you think it is, you (as an atheist I can only assume) would not be threatened by the theists and seek to control by force how they raise their children, now would you?

I've stated many times (in fact, in this very thread), that I am not an atheist. I was as a child, up until 30'ish. So there goes that argument, eh? No where in this thread have I said that atheism is 'enlightened', or any other such thing. I've said that putting a child under a church when they lack the developmental skills to deal with it can have negative consequences.

 

[SophalotJack]

I think we all can all agree on one thing.

You need to enforce the back of your hand to both your kids and your wife.

Then ride off in the sunset with your neighbour's daughter.

That is how Jesus would handle the situation..... I "interpreted" that from the bible.

 

[conjur]

Get some good books showing how Egyptian mythology is the basis for much of Genesis and have your wife read them.

Then toss in something like Who Wrote The Bible? - Richard Elliott Friedman and From Jesus to Christianity - L. Michael White

Then have a nice family discussion.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I've stated many times (in fact, in this very thread), that I am not an atheist. I was as a child, up until 30'ish. So there goes that argument, eh? No where in this thread have I said that atheism is 'enlightened', or any other such thing. I've said that putting a child under a church when they lack the developmental skills to deal with it can have negative consequences.

Okay... so what is it that you teach your children that we should arbitrarily decide has "negative consequences"? I'm sure we can find something...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur
Get some good books showing how Egyptian mythology is the basis for much of Genesis and have your wife read them.

Then toss in something like Who Wrote The Bible? - Richard Elliott Friedman and From Jesus to Christianity - L. Michael White

Then have a nice family discussion.

Yes, yes, and the story of Moses the infant being pulled from the water is the same as the legend of Sargon of Akkad.

The real discussion should be about the historical importance of these stories and what they mean about our customs, traditions, and the way people think. I would suggest reading Joseph Campbell. The mere fact that the same stories appear over and over again, often without any physical connection, should be important to those honestly interested in the history of the human experience (as opposed to those who just want to join in on the book burning).

 

[vtohthree]

ugh

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Get some good books showing how Egyptian mythology is the basis for much of Genesis and have your wife read them.

Then toss in something like Who Wrote The Bible? - Richard Elliott Friedman and From Jesus to Christianity - L. Michael White

Then have a nice family discussion.

Yes, yes, and the story of Moses the infant being pulled from the water is the same as the legend of Sargon of Akkad.

The real discussion should be about the historical importance of these stories and what they mean about our customs, traditions, and the way people think. I would suggest reading Joseph Campbell. The mere fact that the same stories appear over and over again, often without any physical connection, should be important to those honestly interested in the history of the human experience (as opposed to those who just want to join in on the book burning).

That the same stories are adapted to the changing tides of religion is a well known fact. Anyone want to speculate on the origins of christmas and easter? To christians they have a distinct biblical meaning, but they also happen to coincide with certain pagan holidays.

So we carry over stories from our ancestry and integrate them into our current religions ,this isn't big news.

 

[Alaric360]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Get some good books showing how Egyptian mythology is the basis for much of Genesis and have your wife read them.

Then toss in something like Who Wrote The Bible? - Richard Elliott Friedman and From Jesus to Christianity - L. Michael White

Then have a nice family discussion.

Yes, yes, and the story of Moses the infant being pulled from the water is the same as the legend of Sargon of Akkad.

The real discussion should be about the historical importance of these stories and what they mean about our customs, traditions, and the way people think. I would suggest reading Joseph Campbell. The mere fact that the same stories appear over and over again, often without any physical connection, should be important to those honestly interested in the history of the human experience (as opposed to those who just want to join in on the book burning).

That the same stories are adapted to the changing tides of religion is a well known fact. Anyone want to speculate on the origins of christmas and easter? To christians they have a distinct biblical meaning, but they also happen to coincide with certain pagan holidays.

So we carry over stories from our ancestry and integrate them into our current religions ,this isn't big news.

The date for Christmas was set because December 25th is exactly 9 months after the date that the Church decided was the birth of the world (March 25) ...It was set while Dionysius Exiguus was commissioned by the Pope to calculate the dates for Easter for the remainder of the 6th century.....just fyi ......frikkin weirdos, huh?

 

[Conky]

My father doesn't believe in God but he wouldn't dare associate himself with "Atheists".

I grew up with honest options. My father would've smacked me for disrespecting my mother's beliefs.

Just because he didn't believe in God doesn't mean he wanted the same for me. He is smart enough to know that he might not know everything.

He also can see the hypocrisy in those who label themselves "Atheist" and who are intent on forcing their opinions and beliefs on others. He doesn't mind seeing the word God on his coins and that is what separates him from all these self-rightous "atheists". I respect my father for not forcing his beliefs on me very unlike the OP.