Pushing Religion

[RyanKCR]

It's been my experience that, particularly among the more fundamentalist sects, Christianity isn't about having a genuine relationship with God, about obeying His laws or accepting Jesus. What really matters is that God is (supposedly) perfect, and you're not. It doesn't matter how much good you do in life, you can never be as good as He is. So if God decides when you're standing at His throne that you didn't do enough to earn heaven (whatever that is), He's fully justified in sending you to hell. I've heard from more than one Christian that, from God's perspective, we're not even worth saving anyway! (and yet they also describe this God as being the epitome of mercy and justice? )

That is a false representation of fundamental Christianity. Either you knew that or was very ill-informed. Yes we are not good enough on our own to be accepted by God. That is why Christ paid our sin debt. Once you acknowldge that and trust in Christ for that, then you are a Christian. Anything beyond that may be viewed differently but is not a basis for salvation. That is why I may disagree with someone not recognizing that the gifts of the Spirit are active today but agree they are a Christian if they follow the above I mentioned about Christ and His death and Resurrection. It all comes back to Christ and His death.

If you run into someone who claims to be Christian but denies or finds the death and Resurrection unimportant then it is a very very good chance that person is not Christian, in the traditional sense.

 

[TheGodBen]

Well, while there are certainly some religions that would take away the right of a child to choose for himself, It would be a crime and a travesty to wait until my children are old enough to debate and think for themselves before I started teaching them.

Why?

 

[RyanKCR]

Well, while there are certainly some religions that would take away the right of a child to choose for himself, It would be a crime and a travesty to wait until my children are old enough to debate and think for themselves before I started teaching them.

Why?

Proverbs 22:6

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

 

[iguana_tonante]

It's been my experience that, particularly among the more fundamentalist sects, Christianity isn't about having a genuine relationship with God, about obeying His laws or accepting Jesus. What really matters is that God is (supposedly) perfect, and you're not. It doesn't matter how much good you do in life, you can never be as good as He is. So if God decides when you're standing at His throne that you didn't do enough to earn heaven (whatever that is), He's fully justified in sending you to hell. I've heard from more than one Christian that, from God's perspective, we're not even worth saving anyway! (and yet they also describe this God as being the epitome of mercy and justice? )

That is a false representation of fundamental Christianity. Either you knew that or was very ill-informed. Yes we are not good enough on our own to be accepted by God. That is why Christ paid our sin debt. Once you acknowldge that and trust in Christ for that, then you are a Christian. Anything beyond that may be viewed differently but is not a basis for salvation.

This is a thing that I could never really wrap my head around. Theologically (and socially) I can understand reward and punishment. Be good = go to heaven; be bad = go to hell. Ok, that's clear and straightforward.

If I've done wrong and I ask for it, I can be forgiven. But salvation... salvation from what? from whom? Myself? God Himself? Boh...

Well, while there are certainly some religions that would take away the right of a child to choose for himself, It would be a crime and a travesty to wait until my children are old enough to debate and think for themselves before I started teaching them.

Why?

Proverbs 22:6

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Translation: brainwash them when they can't run from you, and they will be yours even when they could.

 

[RyanKCR]

Why?

Proverbs 22:6

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Translation: brainwash them when they can't run from you, and they will be yours even when they could.

You mean like the government run public school system?

 

[iguana_tonante]

Translation: brainwash them when they can't run from you, and they will be yours even when they could.

You mean like the government run public school system?

See? We can play the same game.

On the other hand. you can't argue that parents have a much bigger influence on a kid's development than school.

 

[Augustus]

Well, while there are certainly some religions that would take away the right of a child to choose for himself, It would be a crime and a travesty to wait until my children are old enough to debate and think for themselves before I started teaching them.

Why?

Well, because as a parent I have the responsibility to raise my child to be a good person. Doesn't mean that they will choose to be a good person, but I will waste no time in letting them know that some things are right and some things are wrong. In my experience, there is no better way that I could do that then by raising them to believe as I believe and doing it in a loving way and not in a sadistic or manipulating way.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Why?

Well, because as a parent I have the responsibility to raise my child to be a good person. Doesn't mean that they will choose to be a good person, but I will waste no time in letting them know that some things are right and some things are wrong. In my experience, there is no better way that I could do that then by raising them to believe as I believe and doing it in a loving way and not in a sadistic or manipulating way.

But now you are equating being a religious person with being a good person. This equivalence can be quite easily disproved.

 

[TheGodBen]

Well, while there are certainly some religions that would take away the right of a child to choose for himself, It would be a crime and a travesty to wait until my children are old enough to debate and think for themselves before I started teaching them.

Why?

Proverbs 22:6

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

I think the evidence from this thread, and from life in general, proves this not to be the case.

But that wasn't my question, I want to know why it would be a crime and a travesty to not teach your child your religion. I'm a liberal, liberal values are important to me and help me be the person that I am. I am not going to explain liberal values to my kids and why I am not a conservative, largely because they would not understand it. When they are 16 I would gladly debate the issues with them and if they take a different stance than me then so be it. I don't have a need for my children to be like me, I want them to be something new.

It is the same for me when it comes to religion, it is a very complicated subject and it helps to define who a person is. Children just cannot grasp it correctly. Teaching a child to believe in a god (or teaching him to not believe in a god) is about as difficult as teaching a dog how to roll over. It makes you proud and you can show it off to your friends, but at the end of the day you have just trained your child to be subservient to your desires.

 

[Augustus]

It's been my experience that, particularly among the more fundamentalist sects, Christianity isn't about having a genuine relationship with God, about obeying His laws or accepting Jesus. What really matters is that God is (supposedly) perfect, and you're not. It doesn't matter how much good you do in life, you can never be as good as He is. So if God decides when you're standing at His throne that you didn't do enough to earn heaven (whatever that is), He's fully justified in sending you to hell. I've heard from more than one Christian that, from God's perspective, we're not even worth saving anyway! (and yet they also describe this God as being the epitome of mercy and justice? )

That is a false representation of fundamental Christianity. Either you knew that or was very ill-informed. Yes we are not good enough on our own to be accepted by God. That is why Christ paid our sin debt. Once you acknowldge that and trust in Christ for that, then you are a Christian. Anything beyond that may be viewed differently but is not a basis for salvation.

This is a thing that I could never really wrap my head around. Theologically (and socially) I can understand reward and punishment. Be good = go to heaven; be bad = go to hell. Ok, that's clear and straightforward.

If I've done wrong and I ask for it, I can be forgiven. But salvation... salvation from what? from whom? Myself? God Himself? Boh...

Salvation from what you ask? Well if I can delve off topic for a moment, I will answer. According to my beliefs, God is without sin and can not tolerate sin in the least degree. So if we are to die and go live with him, we need to be sinless, or spotless as the Bible often says.

Christ, through his atonement and through our obedience/repentance/faith, makes us clean from our sins and God "remembers them no more", We are saved from our sins and we can go and live with God because we are then clean.

It is very much a justice/mercy concept. I do something wrong and justice must be served, but the price is damnation, so a Savior intervenes, a man, who was perfect in this life, takes my sin, or crime or debt, whatever you want to call it and he pays the price for me (the atonement) and then allows me to go free...
sorry for the off topic-ness of this post.

 

[sidious618]

I think that indoctrination is always the wrong way to go so I'm against bringing young children into religion when they can't understand what it is and what it represents.

 

[TheGodBen]

Well, because as a parent I have the responsibility to raise my child to be a good person. Doesn't mean that they will choose to be a good person, but I will waste no time in letting them know that some things are right and some things are wrong. In my experience, there is no better way that I could do that then by raising them to believe as I believe and doing it in a loving way and not in a sadistic or manipulating way.

A sense of morality does not require religion. You can easily teach the difference between right and wrong without having to indoctrinate your children into a religion that they cannot fully understand.

 

[Augustus]

Why?

Proverbs 22:6

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

I think the evidence from this thread, and from life in general, proves this not to be the case.

But that wasn't my question, I want to know why it would be a crime and a travesty to not teach your child your religion. I'm a liberal, liberal values are important to me and help me be the person that I am. I am not going to explain liberal values to my kids and why I am not a conservative, largely because they would not understand it. When they are 16 I would gladly debate the issues with them and if they take a different stance than me then so be it. I don't have a need for my children to be like me, I want them to be something new.

It is the same for me when it comes to religion, it is a very complicated subject and it helps to define who a person is. Children just cannot grasp it correctly. Teaching a child to believe in a god (or teaching him to not believe in a god) is about as difficult as teaching a dog how to roll over. It makes you proud and you can show it off to your friends, but at the end of the day you have just trained your child to be subservient to your desires.

Subservient to your desires?
I don't think so. My parents taught me to believe in God since... forever.
Sure, when I was 5, I didn't understand all the ramifications of a God and what it all meant. To me, God was someone, distant yet someone to whom I directed important pleas like protecting my family, helping to find a lost toy, etc.

At 12 God was a little bit more in depth. I understood that I would be accountable for choices I made.

at 14/15, as my beliefs were confronted by outside pressures, I realized that I would need to make a choice, was this really me? was this really for me?
I bet a lot of people face that decision and of course come up with different answers.

 

[Augustus]

Well, because as a parent I have the responsibility to raise my child to be a good person. Doesn't mean that they will choose to be a good person, but I will waste no time in letting them know that some things are right and some things are wrong. In my experience, there is no better way that I could do that then by raising them to believe as I believe and doing it in a loving way and not in a sadistic or manipulating way.

A sense of morality does not require religion. You can easily teach the difference between right and wrong without having to indoctrinate your children into a religion that they cannot fully understand.

Morality without religion is a somewhat difficult thing to teach. Not impossible, but religion often gives a base or reason for the morality.

But I agree, a sense of morality is not absolutely required, but hey, doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Salvation from what you ask? Well if I can delve off topic for a moment, I will answer.

According to my beliefs, God is without sin and can not tolerate sin in the least degree. So if we are to die and go live with him, we need to be sinless, or spotless as the Bible often says.

Christ, through his atonement and through our obedience/repentance/faith, makes us clean from our sins and God "remembers them no more", We are saved from our sins and we can go and live with God because we are then clean.

It is very much a justice/mercy concept. I do something wrong and justice must be served, but the price is damnation, so a Savior intervenes, a man, who was perfect in this life, takes my sin, or crime or debt, whatever you want to call it and he pays the price for me (the atonement) and then allows me to go free...
sorry for the off topic-ness of this post.

First of all, thank you for your answer. I will reply briefly, to keep the off-topic to a minimum.

Maybe it's just a question of wording: I don't see the difference between salvation and forgiveness. Maybe, in your use of the word, they are just the same thing.

For the rest, I see it as a circular argument: God creates man sinful. Sins send man to hell. Since man is sinful, he's bound to go to hell. Enter the savior. Man can be forgiven of his sin. Since his sin are forgiven, man can go to heaven. Hilarity ensues.

My questions are:

Why bother? Why did God created man sinful? Everything would be much more straightforward if He would have created him sinless.

I will not delve in other theological questions like the origin of evil, the apparent contradiction between omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence, and the faith/deeds relations for forgiveness, because this is not the place for them.

 

[Augustus]

Well, keeping the off topic ness to a minimum Here is a rough and quick answer.
Yes I guess you can say that salvation and forgiveness are the same thing in some ways. God forgives our sins, so we can be saved or receive salvation. Yeah I guess it is kind of the same.

God didn't create man sinless, as I understand. He sent us here to choose, to learn and to progress and experience. He created Adam and Eve, who lived in a perfect world, but choose to disobey and then they "fell", fulfilling the purposes of God. So man became sinful and everyone since Adam and Eve has committed sins and since God loves us and wants us to learn and return to him, he provided a Savior that if we repent we could receive salvation.

So basically the short answer to your question is that God didn't make us sinless because it would have removed our agency. He gives us the ability to choose between right and wrong, but is also willing to forgive when we do wrong, because he knew we would at least occasionally mess up.

make sense?

 

[iguana_tonante]

Well, keeping the off topic ness to a minimum Here is a rough and quick answer.
Yes I guess you can say that salvation and forgiveness are the same thing in some ways. God forgives our sins, so we can be saved or receive salvation. Yeah I guess it is kind of the same.

God didn't create man sinless, as I understand. He sent us here to choose, to learn and to progress and experience. He created Adam and Eve, who lived in a perfect world, but choose to disobey and then they "fell", fulfilling the purposes of God. So man became sinful and everyone since Adam and Eve has committed sins and since God loves us and wants us to learn and return to him, he provided a Savior that if we repent we could receive salvation.

So basically the short answer to your question is that God didn't make us sinless because it would have removed our agency. He gives us the ability to choose between right and wrong, but is also willing to forgive when we do wrong, because he knew we would at least occasionally mess up.

make sense?

Well, not really, as it doesn't explain why didn't God created as a sinless spiritual being and sent him straight to heaven (i.e. as an angel, I suppose). It looks like a big game of God's part. But thanks for the answer again.

 

[trekkerguy]

It's been my experience that, particularly among the more fundamentalist sects, Christianity isn't about having a genuine relationship with God, about obeying His laws or accepting Jesus. What really matters is that God is (supposedly) perfect, and you're not. It doesn't matter how much good you do in life, you can never be as good as He is. So if God decides when you're standing at His throne that you didn't do enough to earn heaven (whatever that is), He's fully justified in sending you to hell. I've heard from more than one Christian that, from God's perspective, we're not even worth saving anyway! (and yet they also describe this God as being the epitome of mercy and justice? )

That is a false representation of fundamental Christianity. Either you knew that or was very ill-informed. Yes we are not good enough on our own to be accepted by God. That is why Christ paid our sin debt. Once you acknowldge that and trust in Christ for that, then you are a Christian. Anything beyond that may be viewed differently but is not a basis for salvation.

This is a thing that I could never really wrap my head around. Theologically (and socially) I can understand reward and punishment. Be good = go to heaven; be bad = go to hell. Ok, that's clear and straightforward.

If I've done wrong and I ask for it, I can be forgiven. But salvation... salvation from what? from whom? Myself? God Himself? Boh...

Proverbs 22:6

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Translation: brainwash them when they can't run from you, and they will be yours even when they could.

Exactly. My parents once held this misconception.
They became all the better once they realized it was their job as
parents to raise us to be the best possible Humans we could be and
that Religion in no way decides if someone is a good person.

It doesn't even come close to equating and rarely are they related.

 

[TheGodBen]

Morality without religion is a somewhat difficult thing to teach. Not impossible, but religion often gives a base or reason for the morality.

But I agree, a sense of morality is not absolutely required, but hey, doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't.

I don't see how teaching morality without religion is hard. Admittedly I have never had to teach children this, but I imagine that the carrot and stick methodology is more effective than the religious method. If a child is good then give them ice-cream, if a child is bad then don't let them play video games. This has an immediate impact upon them unlike religion where the punishment/reward is an eternity away. A reward 80 years in the future isn't going to be as effective as a reward 80 minutes in the future.

Warning children that they must be good or Santa wont bring them any presents is only an effective strategy in mid-December.

As for why it is good to be moral, I find this to be very simple to explain. If you are good to others then they are more likely to be good to you, and vice versa. Good behaviour makes the world a more pleasant place, and it makes you feel good about yourself.

Frankly, I would find religion to be unhelpful in teaching morality. One of the reasons why I became an atheist is because I learned more about the bible and the god it describes, and I found him to be an incredibly immoral being. He did some reprehensible things such as ordering the eradication of whole cities whose only crime was that they were not the chosen people. There came a point when I had to choose between my morality and my religion, and there is no doubt in my mind that I made the right choice by choosing my morality.

 

[Michael Chris]

No one is a good person.