Is raising a child without religious belief the same as raising them WITH it?

CerebralCortex · 07-01-2008 9:39am

kelly1 wrote: »

I've looked into a lot of religions and philosophies and Christianity just rings true for me in a way that none of the others do. So I began with Jesus and believe Jesus to be the Way, the Truth and the Life. I then discovered that He founded a Church and asked Peter to feed His "lambs". I have many reasons to believe that the Church Christ founded is the same Catholic Church which exists today. I don't accept that the Church is merely a community of worshippers. It is the Body of Christ and has the God-given authority to administer the sacraments i.e. the authority to distribute the fruits of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

I really don't see how Christians make God seem petty etc?? God created us not because He needed us but because of His goodness and love. God want's us to have a special relationship with Him. He wants us to put Him first by doing His will and rejecting the ways of the world. And He wants us to do His will because it is always what's it best for us. God's plan for every human being is that we become united with Jesus Christ and hence with God by freely accepting the gift of God's grace. This leads to everlasting life which is God intended destiny for us. God isn't haughty. He understands our cares and worries and He's merciful to those who acknowledge their offenses against Him. God sent His only Son to the world to save us by His death and resurrection. What more proof do we need of God's love for us and the enormity of sin!?

It is true though that God's love for us seems foolish in view of the fact that He loves us unconditionally despite of our sinfulness, indifference and the insults He receives constantly. People have no idea how much God loves us and how offended He is!

God bless,
Noel.

Thanks for response Noel but you in my opinion you have furhter belittled the Christian ideal of god. It seems like you've made him out to be something fallible, something human. I've never realised it until now but the idea that a god needs to love or can be offended really takes away from his credibility as an all powerfull deity. Perhaps this is just how I choose to see it because I had this misfortune of growing up in catholic Ireland but this god just sounds more like a very powerfull alien than a supreme being(another ridiculous concept).

kelly1 · 07-01-2008 10:18am

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Thanks for response Noel but you in my opinion you have furhter belittled the Christian ideal of god. It seems like you've made him out to be something fallible, something human. I've never realised it until now but the idea that a god needs to love or can be offended really takes away from his credibility as an all powerfull deity.

Sorry, I'm just don't see it your way. It's not just that God loves, it's more that He IS Love.

On the point of God being offended, He is offendable because of His infinite holiness. The more holy a person is, the more sin offends, so in God's case sin is infinitely offensive to Him.

How do you see God of fallible? Are uncomfortable with His humility or His excessive love for us? These are not natural human traits!

God bless,
Noel.

Zombrex · 07-01-2008 11:21am

kelly1 wrote: »

it's more that He IS Love.

What does that actually mean?

kelly1 wrote: »

The more holy a person is, the more sin offends, so in God's case sin is infinitely offensive to Him.

If a person is infinitely holy in the way that a deity would be surely they don't get offended, since offense is the state of being emotionally hurt by an action or remark.

How can God be emotionally hurt (which is certainly a natural human trait)

kelly1 · 07-01-2008 1:21pm

Wicknight wrote: »

What does that actually mean? (in respose to God IS Love).

I'm very much an amateur in this theology business, but to me it means that God is the source of all love and that there is no love without God. All good comes from God. If we were lightbulbs, God would be the electricity. No God, no light.

Wicknight wrote: »

If a person is infinitely holy in the way that a deity would be surely they don't get offended, since offense is the state of being emotionally hurt by an action or remark.

How can God be emotionally hurt (which is certainly a natural human trait)

God can't be changed in any way but at the same time He's not insert like a stone. Sin is abominable in the sight of God because it's the opposite of all that He is. Sin can only be perpetrated by creatures possessing reason and sin is an insult to God because it is rebellion by the creature against the will of God, his Creator. God is no in any way changed or damaged by sin though. God obviously takes sin very seriously considering that He sent His Son to die for the remission of sin and the fact that Hell exists.

Akrasia · 07-01-2008 2:12pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm very much an amateur in this theology business, but to me it means that God is the source of all love and that there is no love without God. All good comes from God. If we were lightbulbs, God would be the electricity. No God, no light.

God can't be changed in any way but at the same time He's not insert like a stone. Sin is abominable in the sight of God because it's the opposite of all that He is. Sin can only be perpetrated by creatures possessing reason and sin is an insult to God because it is rebellion by the creature against the will of God, his Creator. God is no in any way changed or damaged by sin though. God obviously takes sin very seriously considering that He sent His Son to die for the remission of sin and the fact that Hell exists.

He didn't send his son to die for us, he invented a the concept of a son for the purpose of proving a point. (there was no son of god in the old testament) Having his son die was absolutely no sacrifice to a god who could simply resurrect him whenever he wanted, When the Son 'Is' god. He did the equivalent of sacrificing one follicle of hair to make up for the 'sins' of mankind. It was no sacrifice at all. There have been billions of mortal human people who endured far far more suffering and pain than the 'son of god' did while he was on earth. The claim that Jesus 'died for our sins' makes no sense. There was lots of sin before, there is lots of sin now, there doesn't seem to have been any lessening of sin in the world because of jesus' sacrifice.
The removal of the ludicrous 'original sin' at baptism doesn't seem to have any effect on how people live their lives, whether they become murderers or rapists or altruists, the act of baptising them as a baby makes absolutely no difference what so ever.

Zombrex · 07-01-2008 2:15pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm very much an amateur in this theology business, but to me it means that God is the source of all love and that there is no love without God. All good comes from God. If we were lightbulbs, God would be the electricity. No God, no light.

It sounds nice, but again what does that actually mean?

"Love" is a human emotional classification.

It is a word we give to the emotional classification that our brains make about things around us. I love my mother, I love hamburgers etc (obvious "love" means different things in different context, i don't love hamburgers like I love my mother). This classification denotes a strong positive attraction and affection to the thing and this classification can be made for various different reasons (again why I love my mother is different to why I love hamburgers).

So where does God come into that?

Are you saying that our brains can make, and only make, these classifications because of the way God has designed our brains?

Are you saying that these classifications are actually made by God and put into our brains?

Because TBH its hard to take the Christian mantras that God is Love and Love is God as anything more than nice sounding sound bites.

kelly1 wrote: »

Sin can only be perpetrated by creatures possessing reason and sin is an insult to God because it is rebellion by the creature against the will of God, his Creator.

So God created us and he expects us not to rebel and if we do he finds that action insulting.

Given the logical nature of an unchanging, omniscient intelligence, that seems unlikely.

kelly1 wrote: »

God is no in any way changed or damaged by sin though.

Well apparently he is insulted by it, which would denote both a change in emotional state and emotional damage.

CerebralCortex · 07-01-2008 3:19pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry, I'm just don't see it your way. It's not just that God loves, it's more that He IS Love.

On the point of God being offended, He is offendable because of His infinite holiness. The more holy a person is, the more sin offends, so in God's case sin is infinitely offensive to Him.

How do you see God of fallible? Are uncomfortable with His humility or His excessive love for us? These are not natural human traits!

God bless,
Noel.

I'm absolutely baffled not uncomfortable. Its almost like he has a set of rules for existence almost like he is subject to another being higher than him some set of moral codes its pathetic. It sounds like a completely human construct.

kelly1 · 07-01-2008 3:23pm

Wicknight wrote: »

It sounds nice, but again what does that actually mean?

"Love" is a human emotional classification.

It is a word we give to the emotional classification that our brains make about things around us. I love my mother, I love hamburgers etc (obvious "love" means different things in different context, i don't love hamburgers like I love my mother). This classification denotes a strong positive attraction and affection to the thing and this classification can be made for various different reasons (again why I love my mother is different to why I love hamburgers).

So where does God come into that?

With respect, I think you need a more mature understanding of the meaning of love. My definition would be something like "Love is an unconditional giving of self for the good of another". Love doesn't depend on emotion. People all too often speak of love that involves a personal need or want. Selfish love isn't love at all. A guy might say to his girlfriend, I really love you but behind it he maybe he wants to hold on to her because she satisfies his wants.

kelly1 · 07-01-2008 3:43pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well apparently he is insulted by it, which would denote both a change in emotional state and emotional damage.

When God is insulted, he doesn't get into a huff like we often do. He still loves us unconditionally despite our insults. If he didn't love us unconditionally it would imply that His love is imperfect because it would depend on our reaction to His love.

How could a perfectly holy God not find sin outrageous/insulting/offensive? Sin is a rebellion against the ultimate good. An affront to the God who created everything and who holds everything in existence. With one act of will, God could make the entire universe disappear. And we have the audacity to fight against His will???

robindch · 07-01-2008 3:47pm

kelly1 wrote:

Love doesn't depend on emotion.

Weird. PDN claimed this a while ago to general amazement over in A+A and I wonder if this feeling is common to many christians?

kelly1 · 07-01-2008 3:50pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm absolutely baffled not uncomfortable. Its almost like he has a set of rules for existence almost like he is subject to another being higher than him some set of moral codes its pathetic. It sounds like a completely human construct.

God is only capable of good. What alternative would you suggest? A god capable of evil? Wouldn't such a god be self-destructive?

Akrasia · 07-01-2008 4:11pm

kelly1 wrote: »

When God is insulted, he doesn't get into a huff like we often do. He still loves us unconditionally despite our insults. If he didn't love us unconditionally it would imply that His love is imperfect because it would depend on our reaction to His love.

So god doesn't get into a huff... but he used to smite down people regularly, flooded the entire planet because people were living in sin, and murdered innocent egyptian children because their leader didn't 'let his people go'

Akrasia · 07-01-2008 4:11pm

kelly1 wrote: »

God is only capable of good. What alternative would you suggest? A god capable of evil? Wouldn't such a god be self-destructive?

have you ever read the old testament?

kelly1 · 07-01-2008 4:24pm

Akrasia wrote: »

So god doesn't get into a huff... but he used to smite down people regularly, flooded the entire planet because people were living in sin, and murdered innocent egyptian children because their leader didn't 'let his people go'

God gives life and he has the right to take life. If the people who died were just, there's nothing to worry about because they're in Heaven now.

Doctor DooM · 07-01-2008 4:35pm

kelly1 wrote: »

God gives life and he has the right to take life. If the people who died were just, there's nothing to worry about because they're in Heaven now.

I don't often post here but I do read alot and have to say this kind of sounded off to me.

There might not be worry, but there is the incredible amount of hurt that Gods choice(if he does indeed take away life) has caused for that persons loved ones.

artanevilla · 07-01-2008 4:39pm

I don't think God would care (if he exists or not) if a child wasn't religious as such, rather they should have good morals and be kind and that sort of stuff. Later if life if they wish to follow a religion then so be it.

Zombrex · 07-01-2008 4:39pm

kelly1 wrote: »

My definition would be something like "Love is an unconditional giving of self for the good of another".

With respect that is a pretty bad definition.

You seem to be talking more about the consequences of love than the noun itself. You may unconditional give of yourself because you love something, but that is not in itself what the word describes. Your definition includes many things that would not be considered love and excludes many that would.

But even if we assume that your definition does describe "love" I'm still not following where God comes in as the "source" of it.

Assuming I unconditionally give of myself to my brother (I would say because I love him, but you appear to be saying that that action is in itself "love"), how is God the source of that?

kelly1 wrote: »

Love doesn't depend on emotion.

Well your definition doesn't, but that is part of its problem.

My PC unconditionally gives of itself for me, but I wouldn't describe that as "love" because my PC doesn't make conscious decisions based on it's emotional feelings. My PC doesn't love me.

Actions that a person may take because he/she loves something can also be carried out by people or things who don't love. But that is a separate issue.

I could travel 6 hours in the night to visit my sister because she is very upset and I love her and want to help her. But traveling 6 hours in the night is not "love". A sales man may travel 6 hours in the middle of the night, a man cheating on his wife may travel 6 hours in the middle of the night to have sex with a prostitute.

I do this because I love my system. The others do it for different reasons. You need to separate the action from the reason.

kelly1 wrote: »

Selfish love isn't love at all. A guy might say to his girlfriend, I really love you but behind it he maybe he wants to hold on to her because she satisfies his wants.

I would agree.

Which is why I often roll my eyes at people, particularly young people, who claim to "love" a girl/guy they have been going out with for a few days, or even worse someone they only know on the Internet. I would also question, TBH, how much religious people "love" God, for the same reason.

But because people use the word incorrectly is not a reason to throw it out and replace it with a new definition.

Above you were talking more about the consequences of love, and now you are talking about a person demonstrating that they actually love someone. All these issues are more side issues around the actual emotion.

CerebralCortex · 07-01-2008 4:53pm

kelly1 wrote: »

God is only capable of good....

Are you sure? The whole hell, purgatory thing not kind of goes against that doesn't it. Besides by definition he created us and in his image no less and humans capable of terrible things?
Yours confused
CC

Zombrex · 07-01-2008 5:24pm

kelly1 wrote: »

When God is insulted, he doesn't get into a huff like we often do. He still loves us unconditionally despite our insults.

Thats rather irrelevant. How a person response to being insult is a separate issue to whether or not they are insulted.

At the end of the day it is illogical (as far as I can work out) for a timeless omniscient deity to be "insulted"

kelly1 wrote: »

How could a perfectly holy God not find sin outrageous/insulting/offensive?

The same way I don't find a very badly written software program personally insulting or offensive.

Think about what you do find insulting, and think why it insulted you. Things insult us because they take from us. You can't take anything from God.

What ever you feel about how God should view sin, "insulted" is the wrong word to use.

kelly1 wrote: »

Sin is a rebellion against the ultimate good.

Sin is the actions that take place due to the absence of God's Grace.

Since God removed his grace on purpose as punishment for Adam's disobedience, it is illogical to say that sin is a "rebellion" against God. Sin is a movement away from God, the same way that a magnet moves away from another oppositely charged magnet.

It must be remembered that his is the way God designed it.

We naturally move away from God due to the fundamental way he constructed the world, the same way a magnet naturally moves away from another magnet due the fundamental laws of electromagnetism.

The magnet is not "rebellion" against the way the universe works, it is in fact following the way the universe works. It is actually when the magnet is forced together that it is rebelling against its nature and the nature of the universe.

The rebellion is not when we move towards sin. That is simply moving towards the natural order of the universe. The rebellion is actually when we move towards God, as we are resisting the natural order that resulted from God's punishment of Adam.

Now naturally Christians would argue that this rebellion is good, and that God wants us to do it, to demonstrate our free will by fighting against this natural flow that he set up.

But it is illogical to say that he is displeased if we don't. If we don't we simply are falling back to the natural order, in the same way that the magnet falls back to be pushed away from the opposite magnet.

(wow, I would make a good theologian)

philologos · 07-01-2008 5:37pm

Akrasia wrote: »

have you ever read the old testament?

Yes, the question is have you? From Genesis to Malachi with the Apocrypha? then you will realise that perception of God is utterly inaccurate.

Zombrex · 07-01-2008 5:50pm

Jakkass wrote: »

then you will realise that perception of God is utterly inaccurate.

Did he put forward a perception?

He was using the Old Testament to counter the assertion put forward that God is only capable of good.

If the only response to this is the self referencing assertion that God is only capable of good because everything God does is by definition good then that isn't an argument.

You can believe that everything God does is by definition good, but the statement that God can only do good must be with drawn because it cannot be known.

You cannot test or judge it in any meaningful way.

If God does something "bad" you just change the definition of that thing to "good" and move on. So how can you determine that God only does good if everything he does, good or bad, is simply re-classified as "good"

philologos · 07-01-2008 6:29pm

See this is what the issue is you believe that morality is something different people come up with. I believe that morality is a thing revealed to us by God. Note the singular.

Who deems what is right and wrong? In my opinion the Lord did, in your opinion all different people in mankind did.

Zombrex · 07-01-2008 6:41pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that morality is a thing revealed to us by God. Note the singular.

That's fine, but because of that you can't say that God is only capable of good, since because of the above assertion you cannot judge that in any meaningful way.

Or put it another way, how do you determine if something God does is good or bad if you have already asserted that everything God does must be good.

Its like saying you are going to give a review of a film when you have already said that the director can and will only produce brilliant films before you see the film

How would you actually judge if the film was any good?

Anything he does must be brilliant, so even if you didn't like the film you are in fact wrong and must change your tastes accordingly.

Your judgment therefore becomes irrelevant. Same to for God.

Neither yourself or Kelly or any human can say "ah yes, what God did here was just"

It becomes impossible for you to determine if the film was actually any good or not.

Jakkass wrote: »

Who deems what is right and wrong? In my opinion the Lord did

Which means you cannot judge it. And therefore you cannot say God only does good. You can't judge if God only does good or not because your standards of good are meaningless.

You can't in fact make any determinations about how good God is at all. Which gets you into a bit of a paradox, because a lot of you Christians seem to use the good you judge God doing in the Bible as evidence for why you accept he exists.

Akrasia · 07-01-2008 7:07pm

Many actions of the Old Testament god go against the morality that Christians believe god instilled in us.

I have heard lots of theologens ask 'How do we know rape is wrong?' and then answer that we know because god has given us an innate sense of morality.

Well, that innate sense of morality tells us that it is wrong to punish a child for the sins of his father. It is wrong to torture a loyal friend because you want to prove a point to an enemy that he will stay loyal no matter what, It is wrong to commit genocide. The god of the old testament was one of the most misogynistic, violent jealous, conceited demanding and cruel characters ever created.

If we get our morality from God, then it is no wonder the world is so screwed up sometimes.

philologos · 07-01-2008 7:59pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Well, that innate sense of morality tells us that it is wrong to punish a child for the sins of his father. It is wrong to torture a loyal friend because you want to prove a point to an enemy that he will stay loyal no matter what, It is wrong to commit genocide. The god of the old testament was one of the most misogynistic, violent jealous, conceited demanding and cruel characters ever created.

If we get our morality from God, then it is no wonder the world is so screwed up sometimes.

I'd love for (yet another) discussion on the Old Testament in another threat. I'm ready for another discussion, and a general look at the Old Testament (instead of isolated verses) during punishment, take a look at the many things that the Lord the God of Israel did for them when they did abide by their rules which they received from the height of Sinai.

Also on the place of the Old Testament in the Christian sphere of things today.

Dave! · 07-01-2008 9:48pm

Jakkass there is no doubt that god did lots of good, but that doesn't excuse the genocides and murder. Hitler built autobahns and got rid of unemployment, y'know?

philologos · 07-01-2008 10:44pm

DaveMcG wrote: »

Jakkass there is no doubt that god did lots of good, but that doesn't excuse the genocides and murder. Hitler built autobahns and got rid of unemployment, y'know?

Set up a new thread and I will be willing to discuss it with you in full. Let's not impede on the topic of this thread.

God is not comparable to Hitler by any mans standards.

Is raising a child without religious belief the same as raising them WITH it?

Comments