Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Alright I dunno if something like this has been done before, sorry if it has.

Say two people are married and they want to have a child together. One person doesn't believe in God, the other does. It's obvious that the couple have to work it out together and devise something up rationally. Do you Baptise the child and teach it the way of the God believer, Do you teach the child not to believe in God, or do you do something else?

The reason I ask, I got to thinking last night about it because my boyfriend doesn't believe in God and I do.

I just wanted opinions.

I figure you let the child choose themselves, don't indoctrinate them, but teach them philosophy and religion objectively.

Yeah, if my potential wife was faithful to some religion, I wouldn't lie and say I'd raise him/her as religious. But I wouldn't be adamantly against it either. I'd educate them in many different belief structures and the refutations to them and let the kids decide for themselves.

A friend of mine's family is a good example. Dad's an atheist philosopher. The mom's vaguely agnostic. They have a hardcore atheist son and a devout Catholic son, and neither really bothers them.

I wouldn't marry a religious woman.

BUT.. if I did I'd make sure that there was nothing religious in the house at all and that my child would not be brought up a christian/muslim/jew..etc.

They can make that decision when they're older.. but I'd be pretty sure they'd stick with the idea that it's all bullshit.

Help children discover their own faith journey and don' t insist or demand their participation in either of your faiths or beliefs or non-beliefs. Eplain them side-by-side. As long as you as a parent don' t privilege any religion over another, then your children shouldn' t either. As adults, they will choose their own religious identity and path.

I'm going to bribe mine with candy, say no to God and get some gum pitt_shifty

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Alright I dunno if something like this has been done before, sorry if it has.

Say two people are married and they want to have a child together. One person doesn't believe in God, the other does. It's obvious that the couple have to work it out together and devise something up rationally. Do you Baptise the child and teach it the way of the God believer, Do you teach the child not to believe in God, or do you do something else?

The reason I ask, I got to thinking last night about it because my boyfriend doesn't believe in God and I do.

I just wanted opinions.

My Mum is a Christian and my Dad is an agnostic. When I was young my mum took me to Church every Sunday and my Dad was OK with this as he realises that Christian values are important values that can help a child's upbringing and at the very least it's moral reasoning was beneficial to me on a personal level.

When I was old enough to understand, my parents emphasised the fact that I was allowed to make my own choices. I am a born again Christian. It would be silly of me to say that my Mum hasn't had an influence in my going to Church but ultimately it was still my choice to become a Christian.

Originally posted by willRules
My Mum is a Christian and my Dad is an agnostic. When I was young my mum took me to Church every Sunday and my Dad was OK with this as he realises that Christian values are important values that can help a child's upbringing and at the very least it's moral reasoning was beneficial to me on a personal level.

When I was old enough to understand, my parents emphasised the fact that I was allowed to make my own choices. I am a born again Christian. It would be silly of me to say that my Mum hasn't had an influence in my going to Church but ultimately it was still my choice to become a Christian. Want some gum

Originally posted by Storm
Help children discover their own faith journey and don' t insist or demand their participation in either of your faiths or beliefs or non-beliefs. Eplain them side-by-side. As long as you as a parent don' t privilege any religion over another, then your children shouldn' t either. As adults, they will choose their own religious identity and path.

Wrong Storm, wrong! You have to beat Jesus into them, how else will they grow up to "choose" the right religion!? Your liberal approach is the same approach that John Walker's (aka American Taliban) mother took; look what happened to that decent white-boy.

Originally posted by Storm
Help children discover their own faith journey and don' t insist or demand their participation in either of your faiths or beliefs or non-beliefs. Eplain them side-by-side. As long as you as a parent don' t privilege any religion over another, then your children shouldn' t either. As adults, they will choose their own religious identity and path.
True, I see what you mean. I kind of did that myself. I still remain Catholic but I moreover believe the evolution theory as opposed to the Adam and Eve theory. I also don't believe most of what's in the Bible. I believe in God and that's all that matters. If I ever had a child, they can believe what they want.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I'm going to bribe mine with candy, say no to God and get some gum pitt_shifty
schmoll

Originally posted by willRules
My Mum is a Christian and my Dad is an agnostic. When I was young my mum took me to Church every Sunday and my Dad was OK with this as he realises that Christian values are important values that can help a child's upbringing and at the very least it's moral reasoning was beneficial to me on a personal level.

When I was old enough to understand, my parents emphasised the fact that I was allowed to make my own choices. I am a born again Christian. It would be silly of me to say that my Mum hasn't had an influence in my going to Church but ultimately it was still my choice to become a Christian.
Every religious value is important in it's own aspect, as long as one religion isn't forced upon someone with lower power to the extent that that's all they believe there is to learn about in this world.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
schmoll

Originally posted by Da Pittman

All you damn pedophiles and your candy luring.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
All you damn pedophiles and your candy luring.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Alright I dunno if something like this has been done before, sorry if it has.

Say two people are married and they want to have a child together. One person doesn't believe in God, the other does. It's obvious that the couple have to work it out together and devise something up rationally. Do you Baptise the child and teach it the way of the God believer, Do you teach the child not to believe in God, or do you do something else?

The reason I ask, I got to thinking last night about it because my boyfriend doesn't believe in God and I do.

I just wanted opinions.

My father in an Atheist and my mother is a Christian. They never found it difficult or needed long nights of discussion about what they would do if they had a child in regards to religion.

But then they are both pretty liberal and did pretty much what Bardock42 said:

"I figure you let the child choose themselves, don't indoctrinate them, but teach them philosophy and religion objectively."

They, when I became interested in such things, always made it clear that it was more important for me to find what was right by me rather then just mimic their beliefs. Be it Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism whatever - your faith (or lack of) your decision. And as such they could offer their understanding and knowledge in a way that was teaching as opposed to guiding me down a certain path.

As to the practicals - I was baptised, it didn't bother my father. At the end of the day I am Atheist/Agnostic, two of my sisters are Christian, another is Buddhist and my brother, I believe, is Agnostic.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
My father in an Atheist and my mother is a Christian. They never found it difficult or needed long nights of discussion about what they would do if they had a child in regards to religion.

But then they are both pretty liberal and did pretty much what Bardock42 said:

"I figure you let the child choose themselves, don't indoctrinate them, but teach them philosophy and religion objectively."

They, when I became interested in such things, always made it clear that it was more important for me to find what was right by me rather then just mimic their beliefs. Be it Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism whatever - your faith (or lack of) your decision. And as such they could offer their understanding and knowledge in a way that was teaching as opposed to guiding me down a certain path.

As to the practicals - I was baptised, it didn't bother my father. At the end of the day I am Atheist/Agnostic, two of my sisters are Christian, another is Buddhist and my brother, I believe, is Agnostic.
Wow more people are in this predicament than I expected!

I like how you were brought up. I wasn't ever brought up the wrong way but the way I was brought up, I was told (by Dad, who was the 6th of 12 children in a VERY VERY Catholic family) that the Bible tells all. Dad even mentioned that, though he's not a homophobe, gays will go to hell for their sexuality and I tried to reason with him but he kept referring to the Bible and it's ways.

Religion isn't exactly a #1 talk-topic in this family, but I do believe that if I mentioned to my parents (Dad moreover) that I didn't believe what was in the Bible, I may get looked down upon as if I were wrong. I could be incorrect on that, but I think not.

Anyhow, I believe what I believe. Nobody can change that, not even Dad. (I got too off topic talking to you, sorry).

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Anyhow, I believe what I believe. Nobody can change that, not even Dad. (I got too off topic talking to you, sorry).

And that, ultimately, is the most important thing.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Want some gum

Hmm.....God or Gum?

I'll stick with God, but i appreciate the offer

Quotation:

Statement: If Kelly_Bean does not believe "most of what's in the Bible," then FeceMan supposes it does not matter.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And that, ultimately, is the most important thing.
Of course! I agree.
Originally posted by willRules
Hmm.....God or Gum?

I'll stick with God, but i appreciate the offer
w00t Good choice.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Quotation:

Statement: If Kelly_Bean does not believe "most of what's in the Bible," then FeceMan supposes it does not matter.
What's that supposed to signify?

Statement: Paul writes that Christians should not be "yoked unequally" with unbelievers--that is, Christians should not be in a situation where the beliefs and morality prescribed by God will burden them while the beliefs and morality of atheists will allow for ease of existence.

Statement: This applies directly to marriage, and somebody mentioned not wedding someone who is of a different faith than oneself.

Statement: If Kelly_Beans doesn't believe most of what's written in the Bible, then it does not really matter what Paul has written, since Kelly_Beans does not believe in the biblical God but something with the same title.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Paul writes that Christians should not be "yoked unequally" with unbelievers--that is, Christians should not be in a situation where the beliefs and morality prescribed by God will burden them while the beliefs and morality of atheists will allow for ease of existence.

Statement: This applies directly to marriage, and somebody mentioned not wedding someone who is of a different faith than oneself.

Statement: If Kelly_Beans doesn't believe most of what's written in the Bible, then it does not really matter what Paul has written, since Kelly_Beans does not believe in the biblical God but something with the same title.
Well I believe in "the" Catholic God. I believe what was told about Jesus dying on the cross for our sins and all that but I also believe that God and Jesus are two completely different people. God created the Universe and everything surrounding and within it, Jesus was put down on the earth to do what he was destined to do, etc.

Originally posted by Boris
I wouldn't marry a religious woman.

BUT.. if I did I'd make sure that there was nothing religious in the house at all and that my child would not be brought up a christian/muslim/jew..etc.

They can make that decision when they're older.. but I'd be pretty sure they'd stick with the idea that it's all bullshit.

That sounds familiar? Where have I heard that?
Oh thats right, religious nuts who wouldn't marry another because of their faith.


I was surrounded with religion since I was little. When I was born, my mother did make a natal chart, I did know how to read Tarot, and my grandmother bought me dream interpreter.
I was told about reincarnation, and believe in it still.

I don't feel like I have been indoctrinated with anything. I liked my religious experiences, and I was never forced into anything.

My children will know all I know and in the same manner that I do. My boyfriend was born into a Catholic family, but does not practice. He does not have a preference as to what we teach our kids.

My social and moral codes are separate from religion anyway.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Alright I dunno if something like this has been done before, sorry if it has.

Say two people are married and they want to have a child together. One person doesn't believe in God, the other does. It's obvious that the couple have to work it out together and devise something up rationally. Do you Baptise the child and teach it the way of the God believer, Do you teach the child not to believe in God, or do you do something else?

The reason I ask, I got to thinking last night about it because my boyfriend doesn't believe in God and I do.

I just wanted opinions.

"The No's have it."

I think this kind of thing happens more often than we imagine.



Feceman, I disagree with your stance: If two people love eachother, than thier religions should not matter. Your corrinthians quote claims that a religious person is moral, while an atheist is immoral. A black and white stereotype. Not only do I not appreciate it, I thought you were much smarter than that.



Kelly Bean- I think each parent should teach thier child what they beleive and explain why. Not right away, but when the child reaches the age which both parents feel they can explain. Allow the child to make up his or her own mind, see what works for him or her.


Also, encourage your child to do research on many philosophies and faiths, so that he or she can learn more, and determine what works best. Education is the key, Ignorance is the problem.

Originally posted by Boris
I wouldn't marry a religious woman.

BUT.. if I did I'd make sure that there was nothing religious in the house at all and that my child would not be brought up a christian/muslim/jew..etc..





Why not ? I dated a religious guy once, and I learned a lot from him. He opened my eyes (as well as other body parts droolio), and changed my perspective on life in general.

Made me challenge my own ways of thinking.



There is a lot you can learn from someone who holds such a perspective. Not all religious people are zealots.

II Corinthians 6:14-15
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

Oh a believer and a nonbeliever have nothing in common at all. I mean they are basically from two different planets. Hell, they are basically different species. One born from Heaven, the other from Hell.

Totally irreconcilable.

It is just a shame reality shows that to be totally false. Which is why it is wiser for Kelly-Bean to actual seek advice from human beings rather then just flip through the Bible and go "ah, here is the answer in Corinthians - no, a Believer and nonbeliever shouldn't be together at all, let alone having children together".



Which is all a load of tosh - "yoked unequally" - honestly. All I can say is it is a good thing the Bible isn't taken as a literal relationship guide otherwise I, plenty of people I know and others on this forum wouldn't exist.

What with it implying our parents should never have been "yoked unequally" together and, in my parents case at least, having a long (20+ years and counting) and very happy marriage together devoid of religious conflict.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Oh a believer and a nonbeliever have nothing in common at all. I mean they are basically from two different planets. Hell, they are basically different species. One born from Heaven, the other from Hell.

Totally irreconcilable.

It is just a shame reality shows that to be totally false. Which is why it is wiser for Kelly-Bean to actual seek advice from human beings rather then just flip through the Bible and go "ah, here is the answer in Corinthians - no, a Believer and nonbeliever shouldn't be together at all, let alone having children together".
Statement: Paul is clearly referring to morality and the obedience to God in saying that.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Paul is clearly referring to morality and the obedience to God in saying that.

And? Regardless of Paul's right to say it some 2000 years ago, it is not something people should use to make relationship decisions in the modern world.

Unless they want to, which would tempt me to call them silly. By all means if religion is a big thing and you don't think you could get on with someone not of your religion then it would be time to assess the future of it. Not flip open the Bible and say:

"awww, well I really like her/him and can see myself being with them forever, but Paul seems to suggest such relationships are of questionable morality and not really what God intends. I guess.... I guess I'll call it off."

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And? Regardless of Paul's right to say it some 2000 years ago, it is not something people should use to make relationship decisions in the modern world.

Unless they want to, which would tempt me to call them silly. By all means if religion is a big thing and you don't think you could get on with someone not of your religion then it would be time to assess the future of it. Not flip open the Bible and say:

"awww, well I really like her/him and can see myself being with them forever, but Paul seems to suggest such relationships are of questionable morality and not really what God intends. I guess.... I guess I'll call it off."
Statement: The intent would be not to begin a relationship with someone who is "unequally yoked."

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: The intent would be not to begin a relationship with someone who is "unequally yoked."

Which is just as mad, considering the chances a person might miss out on.

And I don't know if I am strange or something, but I usually don't have an intimate knowledge of a persons religion when I first start seeing them - that is something to learn with time. Which would kind of make it hard not to base relationships on that knowledge. Unless I go around saying:

"Hey, I think I might like you, but before I ask you out on a date I have this question - what is your religion? It is so we can avoid being "unequally yoked".

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which is just as mad, considering the chances a person might miss out on.

And I don't know if I am strange or something, but I usually don't have an intimate knowledge of a persons religion when I first start seeing them - that is something to learn with time. Which would kind of make it hard not to base relationships on that knowledge. Unless I go around saying:

"Hey, I think I might like you, but before I ask you out on a date I have this question - what is your religion? It is so we can avoid being "unequally yoked".
Statement: Or one could simply find out more about the person prior to going out on a date with him or her.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Alright I dunno if something like this has been done before, sorry if it has.

Say two people are married and they want to have a child together. One person doesn't believe in God, the other does. It's obvious that the couple have to work it out together and devise something up rationally. Do you Baptise the child and teach it the way of the God believer, Do you teach the child not to believe in God, or do you do something else?

The reason I ask, I got to thinking last night about it because my boyfriend doesn't believe in God and I do.

I just wanted opinions.

I'd suggest the mother make sure she puts her side across as an opinion, and openly lets the father do the same if he doesn't believe. So long as neither side are forcing the child to believe anything, or subliminally misleading it, let it believe what it wants when it's old enough.

Baptising is too far, in my opinion. I was baptised but I'm agnostic, I've never been religious, and my dad's an athiest so obviously he just went along with it and didn't mind too much, cos it was important to my mum and my dad's apathetic to religion, he thought "It's a ceremony that means a lot to her, but it won't change the child in my eyes, so whatever.". Personally, I'd not force something on it. If he or she wants to get baptised they can do so when they're older.

-AC

BlackSunshine and I have a daughter together, and we both plan to expose her to our own beliefs. I'm an atheist, and her mother is Christian. Our views will not be force fed to her, nor will they be candy-coated. We both want her to make her own educated and unbiased decision when the time is right for her.

The most important thing is to educate a child in a manner that is both fun and informative, beit christianity, atheism, or any other type of belief.

A person should have an option, instead of an ultimatum, when religion/beliefs are involved. I was literally forced into christianity my whole life until I said "F*ck it", and became a happy atheist.

Originally posted by Impediment
BlackSunshine and I have a daughter together, and we both plan to expose her to our own beliefs. I'm an atheist, and her mother is Christian. Our views will not be force fed to her, nor will they be candy-coated. We both want her to make her own educated and unbiased decision when the time is right for her.

The most important thing is to educate a child in a manner that is both fun and informative, beit christianity, atheism, or any other type of belief.

A person should have an option, instead of an ultimatum, when religion/beliefs are involved. I was literally forced into christianity my whole life until I said "F*ck it", and became a happy atheist.
Yeah I knew Rae is christian, I didn't know what you are. But I agree, allowing option instead of forcefulness to join a specific religion is naturally the best thing to do.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Or one could simply find out more about the person prior to going out on a date with him or her.

And if I like a person enough to "find out more about them prior to going out on a date"? Which I do anyway, but usually more personality/interest/as a person wise. As shocking as it might sound religion, whether they have it or not, is of less relevance to me then what they are like as a person. Finding out their religion in order to appease Paul and the Bible is getting into "Hey, what is your Star sign? Really? Like we are so compatible" territory.

And if say I was Christian, and were to discover "hey, I'm a Christian and they're an Atheist!" what would I then do?

Should I go "Thank goodness I did this background check first, now there is no risk of me being unequally yoked with them, regardless of how much I liked them before I knew. Thank you Bible."?

Originally posted by willRules
In my Church we don't have Christening's, we have dedications. We believe that a child can't make choice for itself and so we say that a parent can have their child dedicated to the Church, where the Church promises to raise the child as part of the Church community Through Sunday school and stuff) where the Child will be taught Christian teaching and the Church will promote our beliefs and make our feelings regarding life the universe and everything clear to the child as they grow up but we give the child the choice. Ultimately we present the case for Christianity to the child but we realise it's their choice, which personally I think is the best way to do it (Although I would say that as I am a bias Christian )

That sounds a good way of doing it.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
That sounds a good way of doing it.

It sounds like indoctrination.

Originally posted by willRules
In my Church we don't have Christening's, we have dedications. We believe that a child can't make choice for itself and so we say that a parent can have their child dedicated to the Church, where the Church promises to raise the child as part of the Church community Through Sunday school and stuff) where the Child will be taught Christian teaching and the Church will promote our beliefs and make our feelings regarding life the universe and everything clear to the child as they grow up but we give the child the choice. Ultimately we present the case for Christianity to the child but we realise it's their choice, which personally I think is the best way to do it (Although I would say that as I am a bias Christian )

Just out of interest while they get the case for Christianity (from a young age) where and when do they start getting the case for, well, other views regarding life, the universe and everything?

Originally posted by willRules
In my Church we don't have Christening's, we have dedications. We believe that a child can't make choice for itself and so we say that a parent can have their child dedicated to the Church, where the Church promises to raise the child as part of the Church community Through Sunday school and stuff) where the Child will be taught Christian teaching and the Church will promote our beliefs and make our feelings regarding life the universe and everything clear to the child as they grow up but we give the child the choice. Ultimately we present the case for Christianity to the child but we realise it's their choice, which personally I think is the best way to do it (Although I would say that as I am a bias Christian )

You contradict yourself, first you say "a child can't make choice for itself", then you say "we present the case for Christianity to the child but we realise it's their choice". Huh? Reminds me of the famous Henry Ford quote..."You can have your car any color, as long as it's black."

How can they make a choice when only one side is presented and/or, one side is presented as the "only right choice" and where other choices will result in punishment, as a fact?

Basically, what you purpose is:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It sounds like indoctrination.

Originally posted by Robtard
You contradict yourself, first you say "a child can't make choice for itself", then you say "we present the case for Christianity to the child but we realise it's their choice". Huh? Reminds me of the famous Henry Ford quote..."You can have your car any color, as long as it's black."

How can they make a choice when only one side is presented and/or, one side is presented as the "only right choice" and where other choices will result in punishment, as a fact?

Basically, what you purpose is:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It sounds like indoctrination.

It would be silly to suggest that presenting a case for anything whilst someones making a decision wouldn't be influential (the same applies to all faiths including atheism)

However they aren't pushed into making a choice at any specific age in their life, they are not pushed into attending or coming along to services or Sunday schools. Should any of them choose to attend a service or a Sunday school, then yes we will present the case for Christianity.

Yes we present the case for Christianity, but people need to remember, I am referring to a Church, which surprisingly, is a predominantly Christian environment. If someone wanted to hear about Judaism they might visit a mosque, or atheism they might visit a seedy bar or a Star Trek convention

However many of them do choose to attend of their own accord (Indoctrination I hear you yell) many of them do choose to listen to what we have to say (We're twisting with their minds you shout) and many of them, of their own accord, choose to become Christians (INDOCTRINATION!!! you shout to further your vendetta against something people have chosen of their own free will) and many of them live their lives as someone who chooses to accept Jesus as their personal lord and saviour

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Just out of interest while they get the case for Christianity (from a young age) where and when do they start getting the case for, well, other views regarding life, the universe and everything?

that would be presented to them when/if they choose to investigate these places. Someone who goes to a Church probably expects a Christian message

Originally posted by willRules
that would be presented to them when/if they choose to investigate these places. Someone who goes to a Church probably expects a Christian message

Naturally, but they are children, how much of it is there choice to go to Church expecting a Christian message?

If the child says to the parents at age five, six, seven "I don't want to go to Church" does the parent say "ok, you don't have to go to Church"?

This interests me, because back in infants and primary schools there was two hours a week given to Christian scripture time (this was just an ordinary public school not a Christian one.) Now I personally didn't feel like I was benefiting from it, yet outside of children of actual different faiths one automatically had to go. Of course I could have got a note from my parents to be excluded if I wished (they gave me that option) but that seemed needlessly complex since I'd need a new note every week, and my friends would still be going, so if I didn't go it would pretty much be me alone in a classroom with a find a word (which would be an even larger waste of time.) And there were other kids who I knew didn't want to be there but in their case their parents wouldn't consider giving them a note to get out of it, as they saw it as valuable for them.

In fact now that I think back on it I was the only one I know of who had an actual choice about going or not, and that was because of my parents, where as plenty of kids had no choice.

What I am asking is what balance of choice does the child have compared to the parents wishes?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

What I am asking is what balance of choice does the child have compared to the parents wishes?

I understand where you are going with this, but is religion any worse than any other "idea" that parents put into their kids heads?

Hell, good things, like hygiene habbits, would you say that a child should have a choice about learning to bathe properly? what about in their medical procedures, should a conscent form be needed to give a child an immunization?

Yes, I am using silly examples, but the idea that a parent doesn't have the right to dominate the mind of their child is a very strange and novel concept. It is clearly unfortunate how many minds will be wasted by indoctrination, but looked at objectively, everything you know is indoctrination on the same level as religion.

wow, this just started me on a new tangent... Christian anti-abortionists are the most ardant supporters of "the rights of the unborn", ie, they think that a fetus should have the same human rights as an adult. From that I will assume that they also believe that the child then should have the same constitutional rights. So, children have the same rights as adults, yet how many of these people would extend, say, mobility rights to their child... im going to stop now before I ramble more...

Originally posted by inimalist
I understand where you are going with this, but is religion any worse than any other "idea" that parents put into their kids heads?

Yes. Especially when those parents are using that religion as a basis for spreading ignorance.

Originally posted by inimalist
Yes, I am using silly examples, but the idea that a parent doesn't have the right to dominate the mind of their child is a very strange and novel concept. It is clearly unfortunate how many minds will be wasted by indoctrination, but looked at objectively, everything you know is indoctrination on the same level as religion.

I never really thought of it as the right or duty of a parent to dominate their children's minds. I always more saw it as their duty to provide the best they can (say knowledge wise) so their child can grow up healthy and happy and capable of making their way in life.

Which is why "indoctrination" makes me somewhat melancholy - parents who do their best to "choose" their child's religion as opposed to simply giving them the option to follow it.

I simply differentiate between things a child needs to be taught for their own well-being, such as the hygiene habits and immunization you mentioned and the kind of things that should be personal and decided upon by them in their own time - which is where I would put things such as religion, the types of politics they follow and whether they wish to be vegetarians or not (all cases I can think of with examples of where good attempts were made to essentially mold the child's stance into the parents stance, and when they are being taught to mimic such things from an early age they really can miss out on the chance to chose their own way on such issues).

Which is where I was going with the example above - it was stated the child has choice, someone who goes to Church expects a Christian message - how much is their going to Church their own desire to learn that Christian message?

Originally posted by Devil King
Yes. Especially when those parents are using that religion as a basis for spreading ignorance.

don't christians consider secular values to be ignorant?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I never really thought of it as the right or duty of a parent to dominate their children's minds. I always more saw it as their duty to provide the best they can (say knowledge wise) so their child can grow up healthy and happy and capable of making their way in life.

Which is why "indoctrination" makes me somewhat melancholy - parents who do their best to "choose" their child's religion as opposed to simply giving them the option to follow it.

I simply differentiate between things a child needs to be taught for their own well-being, such as the hygiene habits and immunization you mentioned and the kind of things that should be personal and decided upon by them in their own time - which is where I would put things such as religion, the types of politics they follow and whether they wish to be vegetarians or not (all cases I can think of with examples of where good attempts were made to essentially mold the child's stance into the parents stance, and when they are being taught to mimic such things from an early age they really can miss out on the chance to chose their own way on such issues).

Which is where I was going with the example above - it was stated the child has choice, someone who goes to Church expects a Christian message - how much is their going to Church their own desire to learn that Christian message?

My take on this is that you, as an individual, have certain things which you think are very important to your survival and ability to be a productive and happy human being. Those are things you would pass onto your child.

All I would say is that a Christian feels the same way. They just have a different equation for judging the value of things that their child needs.

How much a child desires to do something is moot. Children don't like to eat vegetables, and you can justify forcing them to because eating vegetables passes your standard for something good to be taught to children.

I agree so passionatly that children should not embrace religion, and that any self respecting rational adult would never subject their child to that kind of manipulation, but the "doing something against the child's will" is not a strong argument, even if you say "they may not have wanted to do it when they grow up" (which is akin to predicting the future) or even worse "they are missing out on so much more" (which is really "They are missing out on what made me who I am" and is a direct prediction of the future and the assumption that others have the same values as you do).

Originally posted by inimalist
don't christians consider secular values to be ignorant?

you tell me.



But that wasn't my point. The Nazis used science to prove that Africans and Jews were inferior species. How intelligent (or TRUE?) was that?

Originally posted by inimalist
My take on this is that you, as an individual, have certain things which you think are very important to your survival and ability to be a productive and happy human being. Those are things you would pass onto your child.

and that's cool. That's all part of having children. But it's when you raise your children to believe that their parent's opinions/teachings are "informed" opinions, beyond reproach, that the problem occurs.

It all goes back to being so certain about what you believe, when you absolutely can't be.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yes. Especially when those parents are using that religion as a basis for spreading ignorance.
Statement: Captain_Fantastic should remember that humanism is as much a religion as Christianity is.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Captain_Fantastic should remember that humanism is as much a religion as Christianity is.

Statement: Capt_Fantastic is not going to debate you when you speak in the second and third person. You've mocked people for doing that in the past.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Naturally, but they are children, how much of it is there choice to go to Church expecting a Christian message?

If the child says to the parents at age five, six, seven "I don't want to go to Church" does the parent say "ok, you don't have to go to Church"?

This interests me, because back in infants and primary schools there was two hours a week given to Christian scripture time (this was just an ordinary public school not a Christian one.) Now I personally didn't feel like I was benefiting from it, yet outside of children of actual different faiths one automatically had to go. Of course I could have got a note from my parents to be excluded if I wished (they gave me that option) but that seemed needlessly complex since I'd need a new note every week, and my friends would still be going, so if I didn't go it would pretty much be me alone in a classroom with a find a word (which would be an even larger waste of time.) And there were other kids who I knew didn't want to be there but in their case their parents wouldn't consider giving them a note to get out of it, as they saw it as valuable for them.

In fact now that I think back on it I was the only one I know of who had an actual choice about going or not, and that was because of my parents, where as plenty of kids had no choice.

What I am asking is what balance of choice does the child have compared to the parents wishes?

Well in this case I can only speak for myself. If what you are saying is true then I have been very fortunate. My Mum took me to Church every Sunday but clearly expressed, when I was old enough to understand that it was my choice. I chose to continue to keep going to Church. This was a conscious decision that I made. It was made clear to me that my Mum's wishes were for me to attend Church but ultimately it was my choice. I chose to go to Church not because my Mum wants me to go, but because I feel it is right for me to worship God. Even if some reason my Mum can't make it to Church on a random week, I will try my best to get there

Now, on a more generalised note, I understand that some Church's, Synagogue's etc etc could be accused of indoctrinating Children into their faith, but I can assure you that the Church I go to does not intend to convert people through indoctrination. It intends to convert people through preaching the message of the Salvation of Jesus.

Whilst I'm sure the majority of the Christian community would agree with me, I wish I could say the same for every Church

Originally posted by willRules
My Mum took me to Church every Sunday . . .

It was made clear to me that my Mum's wishes were for me to attend Church . . .

This is covert indoctrination.




Originally posted by willRules
. . . but clearly expressed, when I was old enough to understand that it was my choice. I chose to continue to keep going to Church. This was a conscious decision that I made.

. . . but ultimately it was my choice.

The alternative is to reject a lifetime of social conditioning and openly defy the wishes of a parent; some choice.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Feceman, I disagree with your stance: If two people love eachother, than thier religions should not matter. Your corrinthians quote claims that a religious person is moral, while an atheist is immoral. A black and white stereotype. Not only do I not appreciate it, I thought you were much smarter than that. Agreed. There are examples in the Bible of this not being a bad thing, look at Esther.Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Kelly Bean - I think each parent should teach thier child what they beleive and explain why. Not right away, but when the child reaches the age which both parents feel they can explain. Allow the child to make up his or her own mind, see what works for him or her. I agree. But, I think if you believe something you should behave how you do, if you are married to an atheist, and you yourself are Christian, you should both speak, discuss and behave as you would, teaching is by example and experience. There is no need to hold off until an older age, it is irrelevant to the individual positions. You are setting a third position for the child, if you do not believe either of you is correct then this would be proper. Although, for two different views held to be true by the spouses, both should be present throughout development and allow the child the choice without pressure for either.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Also, encourage your child to do research on many philosophies and faiths, so that he or she can learn more, and determine what works best. Education is the key, Ignorance is the problem. I think encouraging research is fine, but encouraging something outside personal belief is admitting the flaw in the personal belief, imo, and thus that personal belief should be reevaluated.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Feceman, I disagree with your stance: If two people love eachother, than thier religions should not matter. Your corrinthians quote claims that a religious person is moral, while an atheist is immoral. A black and white stereotype. Not only do I not appreciate it, I thought you were much smarter than that.
Statement: While FeceMan does not believe that it is immoral (per se) for a Christian to pursue a relationship with a non-Christian, he also believes that it is against the best interests of the Christian involved.

Statement: Christians are called to live their lives in a wholly different way from non-believers. It is likely that the non-Christian will be a significant impediment in certain affairs, such as premarital sex--and thus it is not wise for the Christian to attach himself or herself to such a stumbling block.
Originally posted by Devil King
Statement: Capt_Fantastic is not going to debate you when you speak in the second and third person. You've mocked people for doing that in the past.
Colloquial Statement: Okay.

Pelase stop the HK-47 nonsense.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: While FeceMan does not believe that it is immoral (per se) for a Christian to pursue a relationship with a non-Christian, he also believes that it is against the best interests of the Christian involved.

Statement: Christians are called to live their lives in a wholly different way from nonbelievers. It is likely that the non-Christian will be a significant impediment in certain affairs, such as premarital sex--and thus it is not wise for the Christian to attach himself or herself to such a stumbling block.

Do you think you could give us a bit of a road map for the means and ways that Christians, since we are talking about a pretty big group here, live differently then nonbelievers?

I have a friend who is in a relationship with a Christian who wants to "wait till marriage" - and while that hasn't been an issue in his previous relationships. But this relationship for him, so he says, is the "one", and he is happy to wait, what with the whole "I love her and respect her wishes" thing. And from what seems to be the norm I don't think a massive majority of Christians are abstaining from premarital sex.

Unless there is some real evidence that "it is not wise for a Christian to attach themselves to such a stumbling block" (that is a relationship with a nonbeliever will cause problems simply because they are a nonbeliever) I am going to have to make doubtful noises in the back of my throat.



I'd actually consider it a philosophy, but whatever.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That sounds familiar? Where have I heard that?
Oh thats right, religious nuts who wouldn't marry another because of their faith.

Though, it is understandable, since ones believes are a big part of ones character. I am not sure I'd be comfortable with a girlfriend who supports Nazis and preaches white power stuff...I can see how others would apply that to Religion or the lack of it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not sure I'd be comfortable with a girlfriend who supports Nazis and preaches white power stuff...

I'd definately not be, Colour-Power is one of the worst things in the modern world.

Apart from Pepperami, of course.

Originally posted by willRules
In my Church we don't have Christening's, we have dedications. We believe that a child can't make choice for itself and so we say that a parent can have their child dedicated to the Church, where the Church promises to raise the child as part of the Church community Through Sunday school and stuff) where the Child will be taught Christian teaching and the Church will promote our beliefs and make our feelings regarding life the universe and everything clear to the child as they grow up but we give the child the choice. Ultimately we present the case for Christianity to the child but we realise it's their choice, which personally I think is the best way to do it (Although I would say that as I am a bias Christian )

Ha...that's most ironic.Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I'd definately not be, Colour-Power is one of the worst things in the modern world.

Apart from Pepperami, of course. Cool then.

Originally posted by inimalist

Hell, good things, like hygiene habbits, would you say that a child should have a choice about learning to bathe properly? what about in their medical procedures, should a conscent form be needed to give a child an immunization?

That is a totally different scenario though. The children have to learn those things because if they don't ...............................they die.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Do you think you could give us a bit of a road map for the means and ways that Christians, since we are talking about a pretty big group here, live differently then nonbelievers?
Statement: Christians are called to live in a manner that is different in the following ways:

1. Christians are to pray for their enemies.
2. Christians are to glorify God in all things.
3. Christians are to abstain from sexual impurity.
4. Christians are to proclaim the truth and bring the Good News to all.
5. Christians are to avoid overindulgence.
6. Christians are to suffer abuse and mockery without striking back.
7. Christians are not to gossip, curse, or otherwise say unclean things.
8. Christians are not to create for themselves idols, either literally or figuratively.
9. Christians are to "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy."
10. Christians are to do as commanded in Matthew 5:39-42.

Query: Shall FeceMan continue?

Wry Statement: Surely, this scenario is an accurate description of every relationship.

Query: If they do not live as Christians, then what is the point in listening to Christian counsel?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is covert indoctrination.

Nope it's my personal choice. I'm well aware of the fact that you know my life's story better then I do, but you're gonna have to trust me on this one, it was my choice.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The alternative is to reject a lifetime of social conditioning and openly defy the wishes of a parent; some choice.

Again you know me better than I know myself?

So you're ignorant and you make largely unfounded assumptions? I'm sure that winning combination will help you through solving life's mysteries

Sarcasm: the lowest form of wit

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Christians are called to live in a manner that is different in the following ways:

1. Christians are to pray for their enemies.

And a relationship with a nonbeliever might make that difficult?



No real set standard there for what that means, being a personal thing. As above.



Which constitutes what - sex outside of marriage?



Not all Christians take the whole evangelism to great lengths.



Not sure how a nonbeliever might be a stumbling block to that, but anyway.



As above. And unclean things? Some of the Christians I have known have a colorful vocabulary.



Again as above. Basically a nice list of things but I can think of only a few Christians who keep true to every single one (excusing personal interpretation and manners of person piety) and that is without having nonbelievers in their lives. No real reason why a nonbeliever would be more of burden or stumbling block to any of them, or a significant one to begin with.

And besides, I thought the main thing a Christian had to do was repent and accept Jesus. Everything else after that seems to be more suggestions for living a good Christian life rather then something that will loose you your salvation rights. But then that depends on whether a person believes you are saved forever when you ask forgiveness or whether you can loose them.



I believe yes, in terms of respect and communication, I was saying it is quite possible for a nonbeliever to accept a believers decision not to engage in sex outside of marriage.

But as we are all aware some very real relationships that are just as loving and just as destined to last their whole lives don't place the same importance on the two involved waiting till after they are married.



Different perceptions on life as Christians, interpretations etc etc etc

Originally posted by willRules
Nope it's my personal choice. I'm well aware of the fact that you know my life's story better then I do, but you're gonna have to trust me on this one, it was my choice.

If one takes his child to a National Socialist meeting every Sunday, and imparts to him that it is his desire that his child be a National Socialist or Nazi, how would you characterize that behavior?




Originally posted by willRules
Again you know me better than I know myself?

So you're ignorant and you make largely unfounded assumptions? I'm sure that winning combination will help you through solving life's mysteries

By all means, explain how the alternative, i.e. rejecting a lifetime of social conditioning and openly defying the wishes of a parent, is a fair choice.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If one takes his child to a National Socialist meeting every Sunday, and imparts to him that it is his desire that his child be a National Socialist or Nazi, how would you characterize that behavior?

Damn good parenting.

I do not see why Religion should be a factor when two people love eachother. I know it can cause friction, but if religious differences were the reason two people separated, then the religion was more powerful than the love itself.


I dated a Jewish guy this summer, and I didn't care that he was Jewish. I was totally fine with it, I just liked him. His green eyes, his brown hair, his ****, and his personality.


His religion is not the reason we went separate ways. It was his Fear.

His parents were strict. Orthadox Jew I beleive. His parents, I think were so strict, they may have disowned him for discovering he was Gay. I don't know.


But his Fear was so great, that:

-He did not want his parents to know I existed

-I could only hang out with him when his parents weren't around.



I'm not a patient person. I sed "f*ck that". I told him I will not wait around, too see him twice or three times a month, just because he feels the need to keep this secret.


So he said, "sorry", and that was that. We aren't dating now.



The religion itself is not the reason we split. It is involved, but the reasons are quite clear: His Fear and my Impatience.



If he wasn't such a coward, I'd still be dating him. If I weren't so Impatient, he'd still be dating me. The Jew and the Agnostic/Buddhist could have had a really great relationship, if it were not for the other two factors.

Originally posted by FeceMan
1. Christians are to pray for their enemies.
2. Christians are to glorify God in all things.
3. Christians are to abstain from sexual impurity.
4. Christians are to proclaim the truth and bring the Good News to all.
5. Christians are to avoid overindulgence.
6. Christians are to suffer abuse and mockery without striking back.
7. Christians are not to gossip, curse, or otherwise say unclean things.
8. Christians are not to create for themselves idols, either literally or figuratively.
9. Christians are to "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy."
10. Christians are to do as commanded in Matthew 5:39-42.

So the moral of the story is to spread like a plague, but be nice about it?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I do not see why Religion should be a factor when two people love eachother. I know it can cause friction, but if religious differences were the reason two people separated, then the religion was more powerful than the love itself.


I dated a Jewish guy this summer, and I didn't care that he was Jewish. I was totally fine with it, I just liked him. His green eyes, his brown hair, his ****, and his personality.


His religion is not the reason we went separate ways. It was his Fear.

His parents were strict. Orthadox Jew I beleive. His parents, I think were so strict, they may have disowned him for discovering he was Gay. I don't know.


But his Fear was so great, that:

-He did not want his parents to know I existed

-I could only hang out with him when his parents weren't around.



I'm not a patient person. I sed "f*ck that". I told him I will not wait around, too see him twice or three times a month, just because he feels the need to keep this secret.


So he said, "sorry", and that was that. We aren't dating now.



The religion itself is not the reason we split. It is involved, but the reasons are quite clear: His Fear and my Impatience.



If he wasn't such a coward, I'd still be dating him. If I weren't so Impatient, he'd still be dating me. The Jew and the Agnostic/Buddhist could have had a really great relationship, if it were not for the other two factors. I think some of the reason why difference in religions would be about where you end up, if you feel that your belief will get you to heaven and the other will not would you want to spend your life knowing that when you die that your loved one you spent your life with will not be there with you for eternity?

It's true, why would some date another of a different religion. THey're doi9ng everything you disagree with, how can you love that?

edit: I need to type better.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And a relationship with a nonbeliever might make that difficult?
Statement: Yes.

Statement: Glorifying God is subject to the pressures of those around one.

Declaration: Yes.

Statement: That is of little importance.

Statement: FeceMan was particularly thinking of consuming alcohol.

Statement: FeceMan has a "colorful vocabulary." However, it does not mean that he is called to have speech that is not unclean.

Statement: Simply because few Christians follow them does not mean that they are the desire of God.

Statement: This is true.

Statement: They are not suggestions but rather commands on living as God would have a person live.

Statement: While FeceMan believes in eternal security, he does not believe that such a notion is particularly relevant to the discussion.

Statement: Not all relationships are those where an individual believes that he or she is courting "the one."

Statement: In these relationships, the nonbeliever likely to act as a stumbling block to the nonbeliever through sexual temptation.

Statement: The instructions are quite clear. Simply because one wishes to interpret them differently does not mean that they are any less clear.

When I have kids I plan to have my children exposed to the temple and god, although I am an atheist. It is not my place to decide what their beliefs are for them .

To the religious people who say that living with a non-believer is impossible because your kids are obligated to share your beliefs: That's bullshit. This is yet another way that Christians try and impsoe their beliefs on people, even their own children.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I think some of the reason why difference in religions would be about where you end up, if you feel that your belief will get you to heaven and the other will not would you want to spend your life knowing that when you die that your loved one you spent your life with will not be there with you for eternity?


The guy I dated is not very religious himself. He is Jewish by blood (Israeli) and tradition. His parents are religious. He's not. He and I didn't work, not because of religious differences, but because his fear and my impatience.

If it weren't for those two factors, he and I could have worked out, despite our different religions.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Christians are called to live in a manner that is different in the following ways:

1. Christians are to pray for their enemies.
2. Christians are to glorify God in all things.
3. Christians are to abstain from sexual impurity.
4. Christians are to proclaim the truth and bring the Good News to all.
5. Christians are to avoid overindulgence.
6. Christians are to suffer abuse and mockery without striking back.
7. Christians are not to gossip, curse, or otherwise say unclean things.
8. Christians are not to create for themselves idols, either literally or figuratively.
9. Christians are to "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy."
10. Christians are to do as commanded in Matthew 5:39-42.



Conjecture: There are very few true "Christians" in the world.

Originally posted by Robtard
Conjecture: There are very few true "Christians" in the world.

It depends on what you mean by "True".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It depends on what you mean by "True".

Ones that practice the teachings of Christ, and not just when it suits their needs.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ones that practice the teachings of Christ, and not just when it suits their needs. But which are the correct teaching? Some have different views

Really though every Christian is doing it to suit their needs, their need to get into Heaven.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ones that practice the teachings of Christ, and not just when it suits their needs.

You mean the teachings of Jesus, right? As far as I can tell, every Christian are followers of the teachings of Jesus.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You mean the teachings of Jesus, right? As far as I can tell, every Christian are followers of the teachings of Jesus.


That is untrue. Not everything in the Bible is what Jesus taught.


Check out my other thread The Bible- A Violent Book.



I can do one of a hundred horrible things to people, and justify that the Bible supports my actions.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
That is untrue. Not everything in the Bible is what Jesus taught.


Check out my other thread The Bible- A Violent Book.



I can do one of a hundred horrible things to people, and justify that the Bible supports my actions.

Yes, but not all of the Buddhist text were written my Buddha, but all people who follow those teachings (sutras) are Buddhists.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You mean the teachings of Jesus, right? As far as I can tell, every Christian are followers of the teachings of Jesus.

When I say Christ, I mean Jesus, but sure. Saying you're a Christian and acting like a Christian are two different animals. Take Ted Haggard as an prime example.

Originally posted by Robtard
When I say Christ, I mean Jesus, but sure. Saying you're a Christian and acting like a Christian are two different animals. Take Ted Haggard as an prime example.

I don't understand, but then again, I don't know much about Ted Haggard. Can you explain?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't understand, but then again, I don't know much about Ted Haggard. Can you explain?

Do you think being a Christian is merely a title one gives him/herself, or do you think being a Christian is done through actions?

Ted Haggard was the evangelical preacher preacher who was caught lying, doing drugs and having gay sex with a prostitute. Yet, he's labeled as a Christian.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you think being a Christian is merely a title one gives him/herself, or do you think being a Christian is done through actions?

Ted Haggard was the evangelical preacher preacher who was caught lying, doing drugs and having gay sex with a prostitute. Yet, he's labeled as a Christian.

I think it is actions, but most Christians I know act really bad, so the standard must be really low.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If one takes his child to a National Socialist meeting every Sunday, and imparts to him that it is his desire that his child be a National Socialist or Nazi, how would you characterize that behavior?


Oh so you are saying that if someones wishes is for them to be part of a certain group, that they are clearly indoctrinating them?

I'm not suggesting for one second that my Mum didn't have an influence in my "Christian" upbringing but to say she indoctrinated me into the faith is ridiculous. In fact it suggests, that to go to the lengths of accusing someone of doing that, would imply a sense of paranoia or possibly a vendetta against a particular faith

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, explain how the alternative, i.e. rejecting a lifetime of social conditioning and openly defying the wishes of a parent, is a fair choice.

I'm aware of the alternative but props to you for playing the "Mum will be disappointed in you" card. I made a choice and my choice was to accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. This was regardless of my mum's wishes for me

Although I'm positive that if I had not become a Christian, I'd have clearly been disowned, shot and fed to the wolves

Originally posted by willRules
Oh so you are saying that if someones wishes is for them to be part of a certain group, that they are clearly indoctrinating them?

I'm not suggesting for one second that my Mum didn't have an influence in my "Christian" upbringing but to say she indoctrinated me into the faith is ridiculous. In fact it suggests, that to go to the lengths of accusing someone of doing that, would imply a sense of paranoia or possibly a vendetta against a particular faith



I'm aware of the alternative but props to you for playing the "Mum will be disappointed in you" card. I made a choice and my choice was to accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. This was regardless of my mum's wishes for me

Although I'm positive that if I had not become a Christian, I'd have clearly been disowned, shot and fed to the wolves

When I was growing up, if I had not become a Christian, I would have broken my mother's heart. That would have been worse then being shot and fed to wolves.

People need to understand meaning of words. Get the Scholastic , or Scholar's Bible, ...though it may go by another name.

Never get the Scholfield Bible.........Soooooo Bias...........