The Benefit of Raising a Child into Christianity

This thought emerged to me in another thread: What exactly are the benefits of raising your child into Christianity?

I'm talking about tangible benefits. One might argue that a child recieves morality from the Bible etc., but, this morality (i.e. what's right and what's wrong) can be thought to the child by their parents without adding religion into the equation. For morality anyway, adding religion to the mix seems to be a bit superfluous.

Another argument could be that the child recieves a connection with God, and thus, is a fuller person. But, again, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that a Christian, or even a religious person, is any more fulfilled than an atheist.

So, what exactly do you consider to be the benefits of raising your child into Christianity?

(And please don't turn this into an argument about "raising a child into religion is child abuse" etc. etc.).

Húrin

The kid will actually know what Christianity is about, and understand things like prayer and spirituality, rather than relying on stereotypes.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Another argument could be that the child recieves a connection with God, and thus, is a fuller person. But, again, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that a Christian, or even a religious person, is any more fulfilled than an atheist.

I expect this will be a contended point. I imagine any such evidence that exists is unquantified or anecdotal (though PDN does always surprise me).

TPD

Húrin wrote: »

The kid will actually know what Christianity is about, and understand things like prayer and spirituality, rather than relying on stereotypes.

Surely every religion deserves an equal chance? I would think that raising a child with no religious inclination while also educating the child about all the world religions (or at least the majors) would be the best way to go.

Handsome Bob

I think in the case of a child suffering from bereavement such as a mother or father dying, telling them that their lost loved one is in heaven and that they'll see them again one day might give the child a sense of comfort. I imagine, and I'm drawing on personal experience, that telling a seven year old child that mommy is gone forever and you will never see them again, that they are non-existent can have a deep psychological affect on the child.

The issue of what happens when that child grows up and begins to question what they were told as a child is for another thread.

Fanny Cradock

There is nothing wrong with questioning belief. However, it does not follow that such a thing will lead to the loss of faith.

Húrin

TPD wrote: »

Surely every religion deserves an equal chance?

look at the name of the thread topic

I would think that raising a child with no religious inclination while also educating the child about all the world religions (or at least the majors) would be the best way to go.

No. That would be anthropology. Teaching a child about the world religions on the condition that none of them are actually true, will not give them any real or imagined connection with God - or any of the benefits of religion for that matter. The effect would not be the same.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

This thought emerged to me in another thread: What exactly are the benefits of raising your child into Christianity?

If we use 'Christianity' in its broad & vague sense of calling yourself a Christian, even if it's just a mark of cultural identity, then not much.

If we are referring to a serious attempt to live as a disciple of Jesus Christ then the benefits are numerous.

As I see it the chief benefit is that your child is more likely to grow up to become a Christian themselves, thereby getting eternal life.

As for tangible benefits in the present? If they choose to live by Christian morality then they are less likely to get murdered, to get raped, to have a drugs overdose, to die while drink driving, to catch an STD etc. They also will be less likely to get divorced.

Splendour

PDN wrote: »

As for tangible benefits in the present? If they choose to live by Christian morality then they are less likely to get murdered, to get raped, to have a drugs overdose, to die while drink driving, to catch an STD etc. They also will be less likely to get divorced.

Actually, I was listening to a talk on UCB couple of days ago and they stated that the percentage of Christian marriages breaking up is as high as secular marriages. Not the first time I've heard this either...
I don't get where you're coming from PDN with tht murder/rape issue. Why do you think Christians are less likely to suffer from them? I agree with you with regards to the STDs' and drinking driving part.

For myself, if I were to compare my life here on earth with many non Christians, I cannot see alot of difference, but it is not this life we should be focussing on...

1 Corinthians 15:19
19And if we have hope in Christ for our life in this world only, then we are the most unhappy of all people.

PDN

Splendour wrote: »

Actually, I was listening to a talk on UCB couple of days ago and they stated that the percentage of Christian marriages breaking up is as high as secular marriages. Not the first time I've heard this either...

Which is why I want to differentiate between those who are actually attempting to live as disciples of Jesus and those who just like to call themselves Christians.

There is a very real correlation between church attendance and divorce rates according to the United States General Social Survey.
32% of adults who attend church weekly are divorced, compared to 47% of the rest of the population.
Similarly, among the weekly church attenders 72% of men and 64% of women claim to be very happy in their marriages, as compared to rates of 60% and 58% among the rest of the population.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week908/Wilcox_Data.pdf

Also, premarital sexual activity increases the likelihood of divorce, as does cohabitation (by as much as 50%). http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SourcesThings4Teens.htm

I don't get where you're coming from PDN with tht murder/rape issue. Why do you think Christians are less likely to suffer from them? I agree with you with regards to the STDs' and drinking driving part.

Remember that I was referring to those who live by Christian morality, not just those who call themselves Christians.

There is statistical evidence that more than half of all murder victims were either drunk or on drugs. Therefore those who live by Christian morality (abstaining from drunkenness and illegal drugs) are much less likely to wind up murdered. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/24/2041035.htm?section=australia

Consumption of alcohol is also a factor in a significant number of rapes (please note that I am NOT implying that this excuses rape or lessens the innocence of the victims of rape). http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/1015/rape.html

Therefore, in statistical terms, I think it is fair to say that living by Christian morality reduces the likelihood of our children being murdered, raped, or divorced.

philologos

Any morality without Christ in Christianity is a flawed morality.

As for evidence that a Christian is any more fulfilled in the world, how many Christians do you actually know? I know many who would shine out beyond many of my atheist friends. (N.B I'm not saying that Christians are in anyway more fulfilled than atheists in general, just from what I have seen the trend seems to be commonplace)

You missed out another argument by the way JammyDodger:
If you believe that you will be judged for what you commit unless you have received Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, that is a very good reason why Christianity is beneficial in comparison to other ideologies.

Splendour

PDN wrote: »

Which is why I want to differentiate between those who are actually attempting to live as disciples of Jesus and those who just like to call themselves Christians.

There is a very real correlation between church attendance and divorce rates according to the United States General Social Survey.
32% of adults who attend church weekly are divorced, compared to 47% of the rest of the population.
Similarly, among the weekly church attenders 72% of men and 64% of women claim to be very happy in their marriages, as compared to rates of 60% and 58% among the rest of the population.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week908/Wilcox_Data.pdf

Also, premarital sexual activity increases the likelihood of divorce, as does cohabitation (by as much as 50%). http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SourcesThings4Teens.htm


Remember that I was referring to those who live by Christian morality, not just those who call themselves Christians.

There is statistical evidence that more than half of all murder victims were either drunk or on drugs. Therefore those who live by Christian morality (abstaining from drunkenness and illegal drugs) are much less likely to wind up murdered. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/24/2041035.htm?section=australia

Consumption of alcohol is also a factor in a significant number of rapes (please note that I am NOT implying that this excuses rape or lessens the innocence of the victims of rape). http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/1015/rape.html

Therefore, in statistical terms, I think it is fair to say that living by Christian morality reduces the likelihood of our children being murdered, raped, or divorced.

Thanks PDN...but I am assuming JammyDodger was referring to actual Christianity and not merely living by Christian morals.
You are right about cohabitation before marriage, it certainly does lessen the chances of a marriage surviving.

gosplan

PDN wrote: »

As for tangible benefits in the present? If they choose to live by Christian morality then they are less likely to get murdered, to get raped, to have a drugs overdose, to die while drink driving, to catch an STD etc. They also will be less likely to get divorced.

LOL, nice work with the stats - rubbish IMO.

gosplan

PDN wrote: »

Which is why I want to differentiate between those who are actually attempting to live as disciples of Jesus and those who just like to call themselves Christians.

There is a very real correlation between church attendance and divorce rates according to the United States General Social Survey.
32% of adults who attend church weekly are divorced, compared to 47% of the rest of the population.
Similarly, among the weekly church attenders 72% of men and 64% of women claim to be very happy in their marriages, as compared to rates of 60% and 58% among the rest of the population.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week908/Wilcox_Data.pdf

Also, premarital sexual activity increases the likelihood of divorce, as does cohabitation (by as much as 50%). http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SourcesThings4Teens.htm

I think you're missing the point here and assuming (incorrectly) that because two things are connected, one must lead to the other.

According to your logic, I could say why are the no 1 unmarried parent category (black women) also the no 1 church attending category?? Does Christianity lead to sex before marriage and one parent families?

PDN wrote: »

Also, premarital sexual activity increases the likelihood of divorce, as does cohabitation (by as much as 50%). http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publicat...ings4Teens.htm

No you're twisting it again. Pre-marital sex is more common among people who get divorced but IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY INCREASE THE CHANCE. Learn some basic logic ... please!

PDN wrote: »

There is statistical evidence that more than half of all murder victims were either drunk or on drugs. Therefore those who live by Christian morality (abstaining from drunkenness and illegal drugs) are much less likely to wind up murdered. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/24/2041035.htm?section=australia

Doesn't say drunkenness actually, just says alcohol in their system so you can bet that some guy who had one glass of wine (which is OK according to Christian morality) is also in your stats.

Again, one does not lead to the other - they just have something in common.

A doctor friend of mine recently told me that for every 1,000 X-rays in the states there's an extra terminal case of cancer.

Apparently these statistics litter the medical world. Does it prove anything?

Well, someone like you would say that X-Rays lead to cancer but this isn't the case.

People who have X-Rays fall down more, they might drink more and people who drink more smoke more. So perhaps the extra case of cancer is just from increased incidence of smoking among people who damage their body?

One does not lead to the other and that's something that you need to learn if you want to be taken seriously or really change someone's mind through debate.

PDN wrote: »

Consumption of alcohol is also a factor in a significant number of rapes (please note that I am NOT implying that this excuses rape or lessens the innocence of the victims of rape). http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/1015/rape.html

Same nonsense.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I think it is fair to say that living by Christian morality reduces the likelihood of our children being murdered, raped, or divorced.

That conclusion is almost completely unconnected to the data you've presented.

PDN wrote: »

Remember that I was referring to those who live by Christian morality, not just those who call themselves Christians.

We've been over this before many times, but christian rules do not prohibit pre-marital heterosexual sex, but instead prohibit somebody (generally a man) from having sex with somebody (generally a woman) who is married to somebody else. The prohibitions regarding the use of alcohol are vague and inconclusive and there are no rules on drugs at all. The OT rules which prohibit rape also prescribe appalling post-attack treatment for the victims (see here).

What's interesting is not so much the ethical rules you prescribe and which are shared, and usually more clearly specified, in many other religious or ethical codes, but that you draw such a strong distinction between the actions of people who self-decsribe as christians and your own interpretation of christian morality. Which begs the interesting question of why "christians" do not adhere to christian morality.

Why do you think that is?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

That conclusion is almost completely unconnected to the data you've presented.

How so? If the children live by Christian standards of morality then the data is very relevant.

We've been over this before many times, but christian rules do not prohibit pre-marital heterosexual sex, but instead prohibit somebody (generally a man) from having sex with somebody (generally a woman) who is married to somebody else.

Ah, the joys of boards.ie where an atheist presumes to lecture a Christian minister on what constitutes Christian morality. :rolleyes:

The prohibitions regarding the use of alcohol are vague and inconclusive and there are no rules on drugs at all.

The Bible condemns drunkenness, and commands Christians to obey the civil authorities - which rather rules out the recreational use of illegal drugs. In many churches and denominations the rules about alcohol & drugs are crystal clear.

The OT rules which prohibit rape also prescribe appalling post-attack treatment for the victims (see here).

Which, on a Judaism board, would be relevant. But in a discussion on Christian morality it is nothing more than trolling.

What's interesting is not so much the ethical rules you prescribe and which are shared, and usually more clearly specified, in many other religious or ethical codes, but that you draw such a strong distinction between the actions of people who self-decsribe as christians and your own interpretation of christian morality. Which begs the interesting question of why "christians" do not adhere to christian morality.

Why do you think that is?

Because, in societies where Christianity has been culturally dominant, a lot of people describe themselves as 'Christians' who have no desire to follow Christ's teachings.

Of course you atheists love to use really elastic definitions of 'Christian' to suit your own purposes. So, in one debate, we hear how 'nobody believes in all that stuff anymore', but in the next thread we have atheists claiming that the UK is '72% Christian'. At this stage i'm pretty sick of listening to such dishonest sophistry.

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

There is a very real correlation between church attendance and divorce rates according to the United States General Social Survey.
32% of adults who attend church weekly are divorced, compared to 47% of the rest of the population.
Similarly, among the weekly church attenders 72% of men and 64% of women claim to be very happy in their marriages, as compared to rates of 60% and 58% among the rest of the population.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week908/Wilcox_Data.pdf

Also, premarital sexual activity increases the likelihood of divorce, as does cohabitation (by as much as 50%). http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SourcesThings4Teens.htm

Wow, looks like my prediction came true!

dvpower

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

What exactly are the benefits of raising your child into Christianity?

Funny how a straightforward question quickly results in the same old positions being aired (even when they aren't relevant to the question).

Here's one benefit:

In Ireland, most schools have a Christian ethos, so raising a child into Christianity is a path of least resistance. The Christian child is not marked out as being 'different' and, for most children, this is pretty important.

Rev Hellfire

dvpower wrote: »

Here's one benefit:

In Ireland, most schools have a Christian ethos, so raising a child into Christianity is a path of least resistance. The Christian child is not marked out as being 'different' and, for most children, this is pretty important.

This man speaks the truth, for better or worse we're a country steeped in Christian history and imagery.
The majority still identify themselves culturally as Christian even if they don't perhaps meet the stringent requirements set by some people here (on either camp I might add). The major Christian coming of age ceremonies still play a significant role in Irish life.

Plus we'd hate them to miss out on the cash cows that are first communion and conformation.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Ah, the joys of boards.ie where an atheist presumes to lecture a Christian minister on what constitutes Christian morality.

All I'm doing is reading your holy book as it was written, rather than as you wish it were written

PDN wrote: »

The Bible condemns drunkenness, and commands Christians to obey the civil authorities

Well, it's fairer to say that Paul says that drunkards won't inherit the kingdom of god. But crucially -- and this was my point, if you read what I wrote above -- it's impossibly vague about the conditions -- does one have to be an habitual drunkard, or an occasional one, or does one go to hell for being plastered once? Who knows? The bible is silent.

But shouldn't the rule to obey the civil authorities apply, say, to chinese underground christian churches too?

PDN wrote: »

Of course you atheists love to use really elastic definitions of 'Christian' to suit your own purposes.

Quite amusing to hear that from somebody who's just defined themselves a christian morality that christians don't stick to!

PDN wrote: »

Which, on a Judaism board, would be relevant.

Is the OT no longer a part of your interpretation of the bible?

PDN wrote: »

But in a discussion on Christian morality it is nothing more than trolling.

Ah, an accusation of trolling and the point ignored.

Have a good afternoon!

gosplan

dvpower wrote: »

Funny how a straightforward question quickly results in the same old positions being aired (even when they aren't relevant to the question).

Here's one benefit:

In Ireland, most schools have a Christian ethos, so raising a child into Christianity is a path of least resistance. The Christian child is not marked out as being 'different' and, for most children, this is pretty important.

God bless educate together!!

PDN

robindch wrote: »

All I'm doing is reading your holy book as it was written, rather than as you wish it were written

No, you don't actually believe that it's possible to read our holy book as it was written. You have previously stated that reading the book in that way (exegesis) is a fake academic discipline "wide-open to political and ideological influence, and consequently of little more worth than, say, the Soviet "study" of history, or the creationists' "study" of biology -- interesting as exercises in misdirection, but ultimately dishonest."

Now stop being a hypocrite by pretending that you believe in exegesis.

Well, it's fairer to say that Paul says that drunkards won't inherit the kingdom of god.

That would only be fairer if you were misinformed enough to believe that there is only one reference in the New Testament to drunkenness.

"Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap." (Luke 21:34)

"But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." (1 Corinthians 5:11)

"nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:10)

"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit." (Eph 5:18)

"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like." (Gal 5:19-21)

it's impossibly vague about the conditions -- does one have to be an habitual drunkard, or an occasional one, or does one go to hell for being plastered once? Who knows? The bible is silent.

Stop trying to muddy the waters by changing the subject. I said the Bible condemns drunkenness, so living by Christian morality will avoid such behaviour. That remains true irrespective of how much of any sin merits hell or not.

But shouldn't the rule to obey the civil authorities apply, say, to chinese underground christian churches too?

It is generally agreed among Christians that one should obey the civil authorities providing that such obedience does not constitute disobedience to the commands of God (a higher authority than the State). So it would be permissable to flout a civil authority that tries to prevent Christians obeying biblical injunctions to meet together for worship, or indeed to break laws in Nazi Germany by sheltering Jews. However, there is no justification in Christian morality for breaking laws where there is no such moral conflict (as I suspect you well know).

Is the OT no longer a part of your interpretation of the bible?

You know very well that Christians do not believe the penalties for breaking Old Testament laws (eg stoning sabbath breakers) are binding on anyone today. Therefore they are irrelevant to any discussion on Christian morality. (Again, this has been explained to you on more than one occasion).

Ah, an accusation of trolling and the point ignored.

No, just a classic bit of muppetry being exposed as such.

nowimtalking

I believe that there are no benefits to it, as it was highlighted it brings one closer to God, but who are any of you to proclaim that God is real? Have you got a clump of his hair, an autograph or a picture of you with him. ?
The childs faith will develop under the influence of all their surroundings and if a parent cant respect that their faith may change then it will lead to unrest in the family.
I wonder how many christian families believe in true love.... what happens if one falls in love with a person of a different faith and then the two families end up in dispute?
To whoever said that people will feel fuller if they are in touch with God......
You could feel close to a god of any religion and also if you are in constant question of wheather your beliefs are valid, then you are not "fullfilled".
I am Catholic by the way but have alot of doubts and a muslim partner so you know i would know about the whole family dispute thing!

Fanny Cradock

nowimtalking wrote: »

I believe that there are no benefits to it, as it was highlighted it brings one closer to God, but who are any of you to proclaim that God is real? Have you got a clump of his hair, an autograph or a picture of you with him.

You seem to rather miss the point of faith in God if you can't understand why Christians would be willing to proclaim that he is real. You are certainly free to draw your own conclusions about God - accepting or ignoring the existing evidence in the process - but lets not make demands that he sends us a lock of his hair, signs autographs or becomes available for photo shoots.

If you can't see any benefits to bringing your child up as a Christian so be it. But it does leave the nagging question: if you don't see any worth in Christianity then what is it that you really believe in? If you are having doubts then you best start investigating matters.

PDN

gosplan wrote: »

I think you're missing the point here and assuming (incorrectly) that because two things are connected, one must lead to the other.

I seem to remember the tobacco industry making the same argument about smoking and lung cancer.

According to your logic, I could say why are the no 1 unmarried parent category (black women) also the no 1 church attending category?? Does Christianity lead to sex before marriage and one parent families?

Two reasons:
#1. Statistically, black Americans are more likely to be church attenders than white Americans (something that Irish people often overlook because of their stereotypes about the Christian right).
#2. Certain varieties of Christianity (particularly evangelicalism) attract larger numbers of people who are going through difficulties in their lives. They find that such an expression of Christianity helps them overcome their problems by offering them something positive (for obvious reasons such people rarely are attracted to atheism - something which holds true of black people in general). Therefore you get significant numbers of people whose marriages are on their last legs, or who have already experienced divorce, joining evangelical churches.

Now, here's the really interesting bit, those two factors would lead us to expect a higher rate of divorce among churchgoers than among the rest of the population. Yet the opposite is true, which makes the lower divorce rate among church attenders even more impressive and significant.

So thank you for asking that question and so strengthening my argument. Please feel free to do that any time.

Doesn't say drunkenness actually, just says alcohol in their system so you can bet that some guy who had one glass of wine (which is OK according to Christian morality) is also in your stats.

So are you denying that alcohol abuse is a factor in murder statistics?

According to 'Social Work Today': Since substance abuse by either party enhances the risk that the violence will be deadly, counselors are advised to explore options for discouraging heavy drinking and drug use.
http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/011909p18.shtml

Various surveys from different countries report the same link between alcohol and being a murder victim. eg http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0379073804005973

Of course you are free to believe that this can all be attributed to someone having the odd glass of wine rather than to drunkenness - but don't expect any of us to believe you.

A doctor friend of mine recently told me that for every 1,000 X-rays in the states there's an extra terminal case of cancer.

Apparently these statistics litter the medical world. Does it prove anything?

Well, someone like you would say that X-Rays lead to cancer but this isn't the case.

People who have X-Rays fall down more, they might drink more and people who drink more smoke more. So perhaps the extra case of cancer is just from increased incidence of smoking among people who damage their body?

One does not lead to the other and that's something that you need to learn if you want to be taken seriously or really change someone's mind through debate.

Well, not just 'someone like me' would say it. The Lancet would say it as well. http://www.doctorslounge.com/oncology/articles/x-rays_cancer/

It looks like researchers into Cancer at Oxford University must also be people like me. http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Cancer-Risk-From-Exposure-To-Diagnostic-X-Rays-2503-1/

Same nonsense.

It looks like the US Dept of Health & Human Services have fallen for the same old nonsense as me:

The linkage of alcohol and drugs to violence extends to survivors as well. Women who abuse alcohol and other drugs are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. Habitual use of alcohol is associated with the increased likelihood of sexual victimization.Alcohol has been shown to impair cognitive and motor skills, thus preventing women from recognizing, escaping, or resisting sexual aggression.

Drinking also can increase the likelihood of victimization by placing women in settings where the chances are greater of encountering an offender. Also, victims of domestic violence are more likely to self-medicate against fear and to relieve stress. Other evidence linking substance abuse to victims of violence follows:

* Domestic violence victims are more likely to receive prescriptions for, and become dependent on, tranquilizers, sedatives, stimulants, and painkillers.
* Women presenting to physicians with depression or alcohol or drug addiction often have a history of violence committed against them.
* The most common pattern of drinking related to domestic violence is that involving use by both offender and victim.
http://www.preventionpathways.samhsa.gov/res_fact_women.htm

Tell me, the way you deny any evidence that you don't like, do you do this in every area of life? Are you a Creationist by any chance?

Húrin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

This man speaks the truth, for better or worse we're a country steeped in Christian history and imagery.
The majority still identify themselves culturally as Christian even if they don't perhaps meet the stringent requirements set by some people here (on either camp I might add). The major Christian coming of age ceremonies still play a significant role in Irish life.

Plus we'd hate them to miss out on the cash cows that are first communion and conformation.

I think that either an outspoken atheist or an outspoken Christian child would suffer from being different.

nowimtalking wrote: »

I believe that there are no benefits to it, as it was highlighted it brings one closer to God, but who are any of you to proclaim that God is real? Have you got a clump of his hair, an autograph or a picture of you with him.


I am Catholic by the way but have alot of doubts and a muslim partner so you know i would know about the whole family dispute thing!

So you are a "Catholic" who doesn't believe in God. Right.

Rev Hellfire

Húrin wrote: »

I think that either an outspoken atheist or an outspoken Christian child would suffer from being different.

Anyone who holds extreme views on any subject matter typically single themselves out imho.

gosplan

PDN wrote: »

I seem to remember the tobacco industry making the same argument about smoking and lung cancer.

In fairness, not the same thing at all.

PDN wrote: »

#1. Statistically, black Americans are more likely to be church attenders than white Americans (something that Irish people often overlook because of their stereotypes about the Christian right).

I'd guess they have lower life expecentancy, higher death rate, and are probably higher in most of the nengative rates. What you've hit on here is the point I'm trying to make and am trying to get you to accept (but which you probbably never will). There are many other factors, social and economic, that affect things.

You say:

PDN wrote: »

If they choose to live by Christian morality then they are less likely to get murdered, to get raped, to have a drugs overdose, to die while drink driving, to catch an STD etc. They also will be less likely to get divorced.

I say this is an over-simplistic statement that doesn't take into account many other factors.

I work in a very disadvantaged area of town which would have some of Ireland's highest crime rates, drug abuse rates, murder rates. Nearly all the children are single parent families. Additionally, nearly all of them have Padre Pio medals around their necks and are god-fearing Catholics.

Your over-simplistic argument says that simply imposing a Christian morality on people is enough but this doesn't address the problems at all.

PDN wrote: »

Now, here's the really interesting bit, those two factors would lead us to expect a higher rate of divorce among churchgoers than among the rest of the population. Yet the opposite is true, which makes the lower divorce rate among church attenders even more impressive and significant.

So thank you for asking that question and so strengthening my argument. Please feel free to do that any time.

:eek: So you expect that there should actually be more divorces among the total number of churchgoers in the US because of the churches ability to attract those that have already fallen from grace? I'd love if you could produce some statistics for that

PDN wrote: »

So are you denying that alcohol abuse is a factor in murder statistics?

No not at all, it seems obvious that if you never get drunk, the chances of you getting into arguments and fights on the streets are reduced.

PDN wrote: »

Well, not just 'someone like me' would say it. The Lancet would say it as well.

Perhaps a bad example but in fairness, you're now trying to get one over on me by quoting medical literature. My point was about the use of logic, not X-Rays.

As an aside I don't believe you're a Christian minister. There's a level of pettiness and one-upmanship in your posts that I really wouldn't expect from someone living according to Christs teachings.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

No, you don't actually believe that it's possible to read our holy book as it was written. Now stop being a hypocrite by pretending that you believe in exegesis.

As you correctly quoted, I said that since it's "wide-open to political and ideological influence" and hence, almost impossible for people with political or ideological biases to produce an unbiased interpretation.

I do believe that it's possible to make plausible, if necessarily incomplete and unprovable, stabs at what would have constituted some of the contemporaneous interpretations. However, I don't believe for one second, as you appear to (please correct me if I'm wrong), that the evangelical or orthodox or catholic interpretive schools have any serious interest in producing a popular interpretation which does not match their political requirements.

PDN wrote: »

It is generally agreed among Christians that one should obey the civil authorities providing that such obedience does not constitute disobedience to the commands of God (a higher authority than the State). So it would be permissable to flout a civil authority that tries to prevent Christians obeying biblical injunctions [...]

Whatever individual christians' beliefs in the matter, the bible is very, very clear that christians must obey state authorities. If there's a quote which allows christians to excuse themselves from state law for no greater reason than they don't think the state law should apply to them, then I'd be pleased to hear about it.

PDN wrote: »

You know very well that Christians do not believe the penalties for breaking Old Testament laws (eg stoning sabbath breakers) are binding on anyone today. Therefore they are irrelevant to any discussion on Christian morality.

Yes, I'm aware that christians ignore the OT rules on sabbath breakers and the treatment of rape victims etc.

And I'm wondering why since the usual reason (that Jesus did away with the old laws) does not hold up to any serious level of scrutiny. Or, even conceding the point for the sake of argument, why god would prescribe these appalling rules, and then suddenly revoke them.

JimiTime

gosplan wrote: »

Additionally, nearly all of them have Padre Pio medals around their necks and are god-fearing Catholics.

I think you miss a rather big point here. Wearing Padre Pio necklace's etc, do not make people 'God Fearing'. The point is not that you belong to a club, the point is that you 'live' by Christian morality. Thats a world of difference.

Your over-simplistic argument says that simply imposing a Christian morality on people is enough but this doesn't address the problems at all.

'Imposing' Christian morality?? I haven't seen anyone argue that? Living by Christian morality standards yeas, but imposing them on people. Who said that?

Perhaps a bad example but in fairness, you're now trying to get one over on me by quoting medical literature. My point was about the use of logic, not X-Rays.

As an aside I don't believe you're a Christian minister. There's a level of pettiness and one-upmanship in your posts that I really wouldn't expect from someone living according to Christs teachings.

I've seen this quite alot amongst some posters. Its an insight into your mind and its workings rather than anyone elses. This is obviously something that you do, and that you expect others to do also. A cynical view. Also, I think its a nasty assault on the integrity of one of our most respected posters. As I said, it says alot more about you.

I'm also sick of non-christians lecturing christians on how to be christians.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

As you correctly quoted, I said that since it's "wide-open to political and ideological influence" and hence, almost impossible for people with political or ideological biases to produce an unbiased interpretation.

I do believe that it's possible to make plausible, if necessarily incomplete and unprovable, stabs at what would have constituted some of the contemporaneous interpretations. However, I don't believe for one second, as you appear to (please correct me if I'm wrong), that the evangelical or orthodox or catholic interpretive schools have any serious interest in producing a popular interpretation which does not match their political requirements.Whatever individual christians' beliefs in the matter, the bible is very, very clear that christians must obey state authorities. If there's a quote which allows christians to excuse themselves from state law for no greater reason than they don't think the state law should apply to them, then I'd be pleased to hear about it.Yes, I'm aware that christians ignore the OT rules on sabbath breakers and the treatment of rape victims etc.

And I'm wondering why since the usual reason (that Jesus did away with the old laws) does not hold up to any serious level of scrutiny. Or, even conceding the point for the sake of argument, why god would prescribe these appalling rules, and then suddenly revoke them.

LOL. You're like the poster boy for why you need more than literacy to understand Gods message's. God's message free's us, yet people like you want to be trapped. You see it as rules and regulations like so many of the scribes and Pharisee's through the ages, with the exception of your non-belief. You will stay proud in what you consider your understanding, yet will never see past your own nose. All the while thinking you've 20/20 vision. Actually make that 19.99999999/20 vision, as you guys always like to remain 'humble':rolleyes:. I'm surprised PDN has been so patient with you.

robindch

Jeez, Jimi, what on earth did you smoke this morning?!

gosplan

You'll notice that I have no problem with people who say 'the child will be better able to deal with bereavement of a loved one or will be granted eternal life'. Despite not feeling the same personally, it's a matter of opinion.

PDN wrote: »

If they choose to live by Christian morality then they are less likely to get murdered, to get raped, to have a drugs overdose, to die while drink driving, to catch an STD etc. They also will be less likely to get divorced.

My original point was made because I really resent the implication contained within this comment.

The implication being that: Christianity (or what you're now calling Christian morality) is the best way of significantly reduces the chances of all the above. (You'll probably deny meaning anything like this but without qualifying your statement, this is the way it is read.)

So firstly, your argument is no longer about Christianity but about Christian morality. In fairness you can transfer this to any reasonable moral code so the original question - 'benefits of raising your child into Christianity' - is left aside. It becomes, 'benefits of raising your child with decent morals'

The Op also pointed out that 'For morality anyway, adding religion to the mix seems to be a bit superfluous'.

Then nonsense statistics were pull out to back up the original implication that Christianity is a superior moral code to live by.

JimiTime wrote: »

'Imposing' Christian morality?? I haven't seen anyone argue that? Living by Christian morality standards yeas, but imposing them on people. Who said that?

We're talking about raising children here, no? Relax Jimi, relax, no-one has mentioned 'inquisition' yet. Feel free to go nuts when they do.

gosplan wrote: »

As an aside I don't believe you're a Christian minister. There's a level of pettiness and one-upmanship in your posts that I really wouldn't expect from someone living according to Christs teachings.

JimiTime wrote: »

I've seen this quite alot amongst some posters. Its an insight into your mind and its workings rather than anyone elses. This is obviously something that you do, and that you expect others to do also. A cynical view. Also, I think its a nasty assault on the integrity of one of our most respected posters. As I said, it says alot more about you.

PDN wrote: »

Ah, the joys of boards.ie where an atheist presumes to lecture a Christian minister on what constitutes Christian morality.

PDN wrote: »

Of course you atheists love to use really elastic definitions of 'Christian' to suit your own purposes.

PDN wrote: »

Now stop being a hypocrite by pretending that you believe in exegesis.

PDN wrote: »

No, just a classic bit of muppetry being exposed as such.

PDN wrote: »

So thank you for asking that question and so strengthening my argument. Please feel free to do that any time.

PDN wrote: »

Tell me, the way you deny any evidence that you don't like, do you do this in every area of life?

Anyway, PDN, at least you've one devoted disciple.

Fanny Cradock

gosplan wrote: »

Perhaps a bad example but in fairness, you're now trying to get one over on me by quoting medical literature. My point was about the use of logic, not X-Rays.

As an aside I don't believe you're a Christian minister. There's a level of pettiness and one-upmanship in your posts that I really wouldn't expect from someone living according to Christs teachings.

Do you not find it even a slightly bit ironic that you accuse somebody of not being able to use logic when they highlighted your invalid and flawed argument. Attempts to fob off such a challenge as one-upmanship fails miserably. Launching into ad hominem argument against PDN and Jimi makes you look petty.

gosplan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you not find it even a slightly bit ironic that you accuse somebody of not being able to use logic when they highlighted your invalid and flawed argument. Attempts to fob off such a challenge as one-upmanship fails miserably. Launching into ad hominem argument against PDN and Jimi makes you look petty.

The X-Ray example was poorly thought of but my explanation rings true.

To take the logic in one of PDN's examples:

PDN wrote: »

Also, premarital sexual activity increases the likelihood of divorce, as does cohabitation (by as much as 50%). http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SourcesThings4Teens.htm

Even the source he has linked to states:

Marriages preceded by cohabitation are as much as 50% more likely to end in divorce. The higher divorce risk is due in part to the fact that people who cohabit tend to be more unconventional and already less committed to the institution of marriage. But the results of several studies suggest that the act of living together itself may change partners’ attitudes toward marriage, contributing to making marriage less likely, or if marriage takes place, less successful.

Note the sentence:

The higher divorce risk is due in part to the fact that people who cohabit tend to be more unconventional and already less committed to the institution of marriage.

they had the good sense to explain that there are mitigating factors and phrase things in a careful manner

But the results of several studies suggest...

Again, when PDN reworks it it becomes:

Also, premarital sexual activity increases the likelihood of divorce, as does cohabitation (by as much as 50%).

Maybe you see a problem with that and maybe you don't.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Jeez, Jimi, what on earth did you smoke this morning?!

I just called it as I saw it. Though the neighbours house alarm has been going off for 4 days AND nights solid and they are away, so there's more than a little chance of tetchiness:(:mad:

PDN

gosplan wrote: »

I'd guess they have lower life expecentancy, higher death rate, and are probably higher in most of the nengative rates. What you've hit on here is the point I'm trying to make and am trying to get you to accept (but which you probbably never will). There are many other factors, social and economic, that affect things.

Indeed there are. And some of those factors are use of illegal drugs, abuse of alcohol, sexual promiscuity etc. I have nowhere argued that these are the only issues - but they are sufficiently significant to support my position that a practising Christian (ie one who lives by their morals and ethics rather than just a nominal faith in God) is less likely, in a western society, to be murdered or raped.

Your over-simplistic argument says that simply imposing a Christian morality on people is enough but this doesn't address the problems at all.

That was not my argument at all.

My argument is that raising your children as Christians will have benefits if your children choose to live as Christians and, as a consequence, choose to live by Christian standards of morality.

No-one has advocated imposing anything on anyone.

So you expect that there should actually be more divorces among the total number of churchgoers in the US because of the churches ability to attract those that have already fallen from grace? I'd love if you could produce some statistics for that

Firstly, no-one is mentioning anything about people falling from grace.

Secondly, I was referring to what we should expect if all other things were equal - not to what I actually expect. Churchgoing in the US (which is the source of the divorce statistics I cited) is higher among the socio-economic groups that have the highest divorce rates (eg African-Americans & lower income families). Therefore, it would be reasonable, all other things being equal, to expect that churchgoers would have a higher divorce rate.

Thirdly, some varieties of Christianity attract those who are already undergoing marital difficulties. In my own church, for example, I know of at least 100 members who were divorced, or in the process of being divorced, prior to joining the church. But in 15 years only two couples in the church have separated or got divorced. I serve on the Executive Council of a 7 million member denomination and all the reports I receive indicate that same pattern on a wider scale.

So, what I am saying is that, all other things being equal, we should expect a higher percentage of divorcees among churchgoers than among non-churchgoers. But, since all other things are not equal, the opposite is true.

Perhaps a bad example but in fairness, you're now trying to get one over on me by quoting medical literature. My point was about the use of logic, not X-Rays.

I'm not trying to get one over on you. I was pointing out that your logic was not supported by the evidence.

As an aside I don't believe you're a Christian minister. There's a level of pettiness and one-upmanship in your posts that I really wouldn't expect from someone living according to Christs teachings.

This comes up from time to time. Turning the other cheek does not mean that we roll over and let you post any old guff on the Christianity Board without challenging you.

In any internet forum you state your opinions and you should be prepared for others to disagree with you. You are free to express your opinion, as you have done, that my logic is nonsense. I am free to express my opinion on what I see as hypocrisy by certain posters. Also, as a moderator of this board, I will warn posters if they are indulging in trolling, coat-trailing, or other muppetry.

Feel free to disagree with the points I make, but you are out of order in questioning my Christianity.

My original point was made because I really resent the implication contained within this comment.

The implication being that: Christianity (or what you're now calling Christian morality) is the best way of significantly reduces the chances of all the above. (You'll probably deny meaning anything like this but without qualifying your statement, this is the way it is read.)

Your problem seems to be with what you are reading into my statement, rather than what I actually said. I don't think I made any claim about Christianity being the best way to do anything.

So firstly, your argument is no longer about Christianity but about Christian morality. In fairness you can transfer this to any reasonable moral code so the original question - 'benefits of raising your child into Christianity' - is left aside. It becomes, 'benefits of raising your child with decent morals'

This thread is about raising our children as Christians. Therefore it is important that we know what we mean by that. If we are using the elastic term for 'Christian' preferred by some atheists then this whole thread is a waste of time. I see no point in discussing whether there are benefits in raising a child to have some vague Christian belief that is unrelated to morality.

However, if you want to divorce Christianity from morality, then here goes. No, I do not think that there is any benefit in raising a child to have some sense of Christian identity, or even believing some theological truths about Jesus, if they are not taught that their beliefs carry necessary moral implications. In fact I think raising a child that way would be immeasurably damaging.

Fanny Cradock

Well said!

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

As for tangible benefits in the present? If they choose to live by Christian morality then they are less likely to get murdered, to get raped, to have a drugs overdose, to die while drink driving, to catch an STD etc. They also will be less likely to get divorced.

What it is saying is that a non-christian is more likely to find themselves in a situation that can lead to the above consequences. Personally I find that statement quite offensive.
Just imagine if a non-christian had made the same claims about christians? I'd imagine they'd be banned immediately.

Rev Hellfire

Bduffman wrote: »

What it is saying is that a non-christian is more likely to find themselves in a situation that can lead to the above consequences. Personally I find that statement quite offensive.
Just imagine if a non-christian had made the same claims about christians? I'd imagine they'd be banned immediately.

That's not what he's saying, he's saying if someone choices to live a lifestyle influenced/based on Christian morals that individual will most likely be less likely to place themselves in harms way.

Which is to say if you lead a life avoiding excess, are faithful and selective to your partner you'll be exposed to less harm. Seems simple to me.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

There is a very real correlation between church attendance and divorce rates according to the United States General Social Survey.
32% of adults who attend church weekly are divorced, compared to 47% of the rest of the population.

And this, you assume, is because they are happier in their marriage than non-christians? Maybe a large proportion of the 64% who stay married are miserable but only stay together because thats what 'good christians' are supposed to do?

PDN wrote: »

Similarly, among the weekly church attenders 72% of men and 64% of women claim to be very happy in their marriages, as compared to rates of 60% and 58% among the rest of the population.

Could that be put down to the rest of the population being more honest?

PDN wrote: »

Also, premarital sexual activity increases the likelihood of divorce, as does cohabitation (by as much as 50%).

Could that be down to the fact that most cohabiting couples would be less religious & would therefore have less of a problem with divorce in the first place?

PDN wrote: »

Remember that I was referring to those who live by Christian morality, not just those who call themselves Christians.

There is statistical evidence that more than half of all murder victims were either drunk or on drugs. Therefore those who live by Christian morality (abstaining from drunkenness and illegal drugs) are much less likely to wind up murdered. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/24/2041035.htm?section=australia

Consumption of alcohol is also a factor in a significant number of rapes (please note that I am NOT implying that this excuses rape or lessens the innocence of the victims of rape). http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/1015/rape.html

Therefore, in statistical terms, I think it is fair to say that living by Christian morality reduces the likelihood of our children being murdered, raped, or divorced.

This proves nothing. What you call 'christian morality' the rest of us just call 'morality'

Bduffman

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That's not what he's saying, he's saying if someone choices to live a lifestyle influenced/based on Christian morals that individual will most likely be less likely to place themselves in harms way.

Which is to say if you lead a life avoiding excess, are faithful and selective to your partner you'll be exposed to less harm. Seems simple to me.

Well, again, what you call christian morals I just call morals. I am a non-christian, yet I do not place myself in harms way. To me, thats just logic - a survival instinct if you will. Something that we all evolved with

Rev Hellfire

Bduffman wrote: »

Well, again, what you call christian morals I just call morals. I am a non-christian, yet I do not place myself in harms way. To me, thats just logic - a survival instinct if you will. Something that we all evolved with

But that's the point, how does that imply in anyway that you or someone of a different religion can not have morals also.
It simply states that if you live by the standard set of Christian moral you'll be less likely to encounter the negative items that he listed above.
Nowhere does he claim such benefits are exclusive to Christianity, this seeing shadows seems to be a atheist failing

Bduffman

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But that's the point, how does that imply in anyway that you or someone of a different religion can not have morals also.
It simply states that if you live by the standard set of Christian moral you'll be less likely to encounter the negative items that he listed above.
Nowhere does he claim such benefits are exclusive to Christianity, this seeing shadows seems to be a atheist failing

You must think we're pretty stupid. You well know that there is a message implicit in that statement that the morals us atheists possess are directly as a result of the 'christian society' we live in. Be honest - thats what you believe too isn't it?

Rev Hellfire

Bduffman wrote: »

You must think we're pretty stupid. You well know that there is a message implicit in that statement that the morals us atheists possess are directly as a result of the 'christian society' we live in. Be honest - thats what you believe too isn't it?

Nope, because its clear that those Christian morals have been influenced by the societies in which Christianity as we know it formed. You have it in reverse.

But clearly its what you believe.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

What it is saying is that a non-christian is more likely to find themselves in a situation that can lead to the above consequences. Personally I find that statement quite offensive.
Just imagine if a non-christian had made the same claims about christians? I'd imagine they'd be banned immediately.

You wouldn't be banned, but you'd be laughed at for arguing something that is silly and patently untrue.

My statement is no more offensive than, in a situation where 50% of food poisoning cases were caused by eating tainted pork, arguing that Jews or Muslims would be less likely to suffer from food poisoning.

Behaviour that is contrary to Christian morality increases your risk of suffering certain consequences. Therefore those who are practicing Christians, and so abstain from said behaviours, are less likely to suffer said consequences. I'm amazed that you would find that offensive, but I don't think there's much we can do about that.

philologos

Bduffman wrote: »

Well, again, what you call christian morals I just call morals. I am a non-christian, yet I do not place myself in harms way. To me, thats just logic - a survival instinct if you will. Something that we all evolved with

What is the point in being so pedantic about it?

Christian morality - Moral teachings from the Christian scriptures.
Islamic morality - Moral teachings from the Islamic scriptures.
Jewish morality - Moral teachings from the Jewish scriptures.
etc.

You surely get the point?

The source of the morals for Christians doesn't come from the same source as those of atheists in most cases.

studiorat

Christmas Presents. Yay!

Original sin, supernatural moral guidance, personal belief-superiority complex and various other spiritual hocus-pocus, no thanks.

philologos

studiorat wrote: »

Christmas Presents. Yay!

Original sin, supernatural moral guidance, personal belief-superiority complex and various other spiritual hocus-pocus, no thanks.

I don't have a superiority complex to anyone at all. In Christianity actually it is believed that we are all as bad as eachother, we all need redemption for our sins, and my sins are no better than yours. How does that leave me superior to you? However what I do see as superior to humankind is God, and the teachings that He has given us to follow.

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't have a superiority complex to anyone at all. In Christianity actually it is believed that we are all as bad as eachother, we all need redemption for our sins, and my sins are no better than yours. How does that leave me superior to you? However what I do see as superior to humankind is God, and the teachings that He has given us to follow.

"Personal Belief Superiority Complex" (PBSC) Do you believe Christanity is the true path and all others are wrong?

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

"Personal Belief Superiority Complex" (PBSC) Do you believe Christanity is the true path and all others are wrong?

Do you believe atheism is true and all religions are wrong?

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

You wouldn't be banned, but you'd be laughed at for arguing something that is silly and patently untrue.

My statement is no more offensive than, in a situation where 50% of food poisoning cases were caused by eating tainted pork, arguing that Jews or Muslims would be less likely to suffer from food poisoning.

Behaviour that is contrary to Christian morality increases your risk of suffering certain consequences. Therefore those who are practicing Christians, and so abstain from said behaviours, are less likely to suffer said consequences. I'm amazed that you would find that offensive, but I don't think there's much we can do about that.

The thing that I find offensive the is assumption that straying from 'christian morality' would lead one to be in danger. Most of us live by our own morals, which matches 'christian morals' quite closely. That is because they are logically based on how any decent society should work. That has nothing to do with christianity & everything to do with whats right & wrong.