Study: Religion is good for kids
posted at 4:06 pm on April 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Well, I guess if any one of the three of us adults here at HA was going to be childless, it’s a good thing it’s me. I wipe my tears with my surfeit of disposable income.
Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development…
The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services—especially when both parents did so frequently—and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents.
Bartkowski thinks religion can be good for kids for three reasons. First, religious networks provide social support to parents, he said, and this can improve their parenting skills… Secondly, the types of values and norms that circulate in religious congregations tend to be self-sacrificing and pro-family, Bartkowski told LiveScience… Finally, religious organizations imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance, he said.
They don’t have any data about denominational differences, but if the Catholic household I grew up in is representative then it sure ain’t Catholics who are dragging this average up. Exit question one: Isn’t the real lesson here that religion spares parents from pounding headaches? Exit question two: WWRDD?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5
I see that you’re repeating the same arguments you used in the last post.
Tell me, since you have above average intelligence, have you weighed all the evidence for the existence of God? Are you infallible?
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Easy questions.
1) It is very unlikely that I have weighed “all” of the evidence as there may be evidence or arguments that I am unaware of.
2) I am extremely fallible.
When conclusive evidence is provided, I will happily fall to my knees and take jesus as my personal saviour. I am not dogmatic. I just go where the evidence leads.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 25, 2007 at 11:48 AM
So you’re in a logical position of complete uncertainty as to whether or not the Christian God exists, but you continue to be dependent upon yourself for the final answer as to whether or not He is what He claims to be in the Bible. If you’re fallible, why should you trust in yourself?
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Still going on? Neat.
Esthier, I thought you forgot about me. Glad to see you didn’t. The second part of my post was snark, the first was the part that needs to be addressed. Come on, that’s witty snark to boot.
Adam and Eve were created without morals. Eating from the tree provided them morals. This is demonstrated by the shame of their nakedness and their desire to hide from God for disobeying. Prior to that, they were letting it all hang out and didn’t understand what disobedience meant.
If, as you posit, the tree was simply a test, then they would not have been wearing the fig leaves and hiding. They would have simply admitted what they did and accepted the consequences. They were amoral prior to eating of the fruit and would have remained so after eating the fruit. It’s not about a test or free will, but the attempt to become God which brings about the fall.
An innocent attempt, for they could not recognize the evil contained within the serpent.
Neat!
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 11:58 AM
I am certain that there is no god and I thought I had been clear about that. I am certain because of overwhelming evidence that theists choose to ignore that I am not going to cite here as evidence is meaningless to theists.
When I say that I am not dogmatic, I mean that if god split the heavens aside and addressed me personally, much in the way that Esthier described
I will admit I am wrong.
Short of that, I am going to stick with the only conclusion that makes sense in light of the overwhelming evidence.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 25, 2007 at 12:06 PM
But you just said you couldn’t be certain. In your own words, “I am extremely fallible,” “it is very unlikely that I have ‘weighed all the evidence.’” Your committing logical errors here.
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 12:08 PM
*You’re
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Uh, oh. That lack of above-average intelligence is starting to show… :-)
Slublog on April 25, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Really, though, it wouldn’t. Theists would declare it a miracle and non-theists would attempt to find a rational explanation. In fact, no empirical evidence can be produced either for or against the veracity of a statement that is explicitly non-empirical in nature, and the claim “God exists,” whatever it means (I’ll be the first to admit, I have no idea), clearly fits that bill.
Blacklake on April 25, 2007 at 12:20 PM
So, Gene Splicer, you are saying that parents who attend church have heavy parental interaction with their kids and those who do not go to church regularly tend to argue a lot in front of their kids. If that is the case then religion is relevant.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 12:21 PM
.
Is this what you had in mind?
His head and his hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in the furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand, he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, but behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”Revelation 1:14-18
naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Heheh. I’m afraid you’re right.
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Of course I didn’t forget. I just had limitted computer access.
But I think you’re mistaking my point. I don’t believe it was a simple test. I believe it was The test, one that told them more about themselves than any other test could have.
I believe that it did give them the knowledge of good and evil, but not because the fruit was magical. I believe that in acting in disobedience, they were able to learn what evil is and thus were able to tell the difference between good and evil. And it is because of that newfound knowledge that they understood that what they did was evil and something to be ashamed of.
You make the point yourself when you say they didn’t recognize evil in the serpent. Of course they didn’t. Before learning what evil was by performing evil, they couldn’t recognize it.
What God said was true. That tree imparted knowledge on them, but not because the tree was anything special and more because in eating the tree they were disobeying God.
To speak plainly, I mean that had God never told them to refrain from eating of any specific tree, and Adam and Eve just happened to eat that same fruit, nothing would have happened. They would have remained innocent.
But that’s just my opinion.
I would never ask you to do otherwise. I was only saying that it’s rude to assume I’m not intelligent. Just because you disagree with me doesn’t make me ignorant. I give you the same respect in return.
It’s like my relationship with my mother. I love her and believe she’s a wonderful person. There isn’t a single person who wouldn’t benefit from knowing her, in my opinion. And I could tell you this until my fingers could type no more, but it should not be enough to convince you to start up any kind of relationship with her.
You don’t even know me. For all you know, I’m real-life guy from Psycho with Internet access.
Unless you’ve actually met my mother, you have no reason to believe a word I say about her, and even then, you should check what I say verses what your view of her is.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 12:30 PM
No, that is not what I am saying at all. You missed the point entirely. I am saying the premise the study centered on was and is flawed to begin with. Rather than take the stance of religion being beneficial, it would have been more relevant to study parental involvement specifically. Arguing in front of children, be it about religion or not, is detrimental to the kids. Parents spending time with their kids in organized activities or just in family outings, non-religious or religious, has beneficial results.
In other words, the people who ran this study are taking activities not specific to religion and trying to make an argument for the beneficial results of religion.
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Yes, only I’d appear to more than one person and would have done this BEFORE being tortured.
But again, that’s just me.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 12:35 PM
I so wish the Council at Nicea had tossed Revelation and tossed in a couple of Gnostic gospels instead. They were considering it.
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Oh come on, Revelation reads like a nice comic book and sums up the whole of exists in the Dragon/pregnant woman section.
Then again, the Christian argument would be that obviously God wanted it to stay.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Actually I was being facetious. I knew you wouldn’t say anything positive about religion. But the study said that those children from homes where the parents attended church tended to be the best behaved. To follow your argument it would appear that if the children with church attending parents are the best behaved and those parents are the ones who are most involved with their children then church attendance would have a positive affect on the parents and hence on the children. Therefor the religious attitudes of the parents is relevant.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 12:39 PM
A + B = C
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Sorry, I forgot to address my post to Gene Splicer. I have a degree in Social Science and I see nothing wrong with the way the study was done and as a former 1st grade teacher’s aide I certainly have seen evidence of this myself.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Does this work for you?
Revelation 1:6-8
naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM
So do you often enter into debates or make such flippant comments at ease? And how did you know I would not post anything positive about religion? Do you even know my stance on religion or is this just a blanket bias against people not of your religion in general?
And again, you keep missing the larger issue. Take any group of families, religious and non-religious, have one mixed group engage in family activities and the other not and you get the same outcomes. In that case, religion is irrelevant. It is simply the outcome of parents being parents and taking time to spend time with their children.
I could run a similar study and purposely pick non-religious families, place them in structured and family activities and come up with the same results. Would I then be justified in claiming that if you take out religion, that is is beneficial to children? That claim would be just as nonsensical as the one published in this study.
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 12:51 PM
But you are not making any sense. If they had left out the religious attitudes of the parents the results would have been the same. Even if that had not been a variable, the fact would still be that those children who were best behaved would have had parents who were regular church attendees. You may not have known that fact but it would still have been a fact. You can officially leave that out but it would still be a reason for the positive behavior.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Rose,
You’re basing your opinion on a couple of lines in a press release. Even that release contains a pile of caveats. What you are doing has a great deal in common with Garble Warmenizers.
Suppose a specific demographic had an above average church attendance. Suppose that demographic also made up a signifigant proportion of prison inmates. It would not prove that attending church makes one a crimminal.
I wrote near the top that one needs to see the actual methodology before one can begin to draw a conclusion.
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Are you stuck on repeat? I said I’d do all of that first. My main beef would be with having to get all my flesh ripped off.
If I were God, I’d just say no to that one.
Look, I hate to enter this one, but you’re talking about a different study. You’re talking about putting non-religious families into a structured activies setting.
But with the religious families, the study didn’t have to put anyone in anything. You have an extra variable in there. Not only did you take non-religious families, but you placed them in a specific situation.
Yes, the study just as easily could have studied the family that goes deep-sea diving together, but it didn’t, it chose religion as an activity families do together.
And if it is the case that religious families tend to spend more time together, then the finding is obvious and could easily be applied to families that do stuff together, like the one that’s recycling its waste.
Religion only makes a difference in so much as it’s the activity that brings the family together.
However, not all religious families will necessarily spend time with their kids. It is possible to just drop them off at Sunday School, not say a word the whole ride home, and merely repeat the whole thing next Sunday.
So if the study finds that religious parents actually talk to their kids, it shouldn’t have been taken as a given.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 1:00 PM
You are looking for a reason not to accept this study. Your arguments are not valid. This was a specific study. It came to a specific conclusion. You are ignoring the results because you do not like them. And I don’t have any idea what a Garble Warmenizer is, but as I said before I have a degree in social science and am aware of these kinds of studies.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Rose,
First of all care to answer the questions I posted regarding how you just “knew” I would not post anything positive about religion? Also, is this more of your facetious postings? If you want to earnestly debate fine, but answer questions posed.
No it would not. Did you even read the study? It was specifically designed around religious preconceptions regarding church attendance and arguing about religion, not family activities and/or arguing in general.
Again the study was run specifically based on religious preconceptions. It has already been documented that if families spend time together in organized activates or family outings that the children benefit from it. Why did the group running the study not ask or catalogue children who engaged in non-religion activities and chart their behavior as well?
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Esthier
The point is that if you find non-religious families who regularly engage in family activities the outcome is the same.
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I am sorry if my assumption regarding your opinion of religion was wrong. I would be happy to hear any positive statements that you have regarding religion. The researchers questioned the teachers of 16,000 students regarding their behavior and attitudes. They also questioned the parents regarding their church attendance and religious attitudes. The study was quite comprehensive and I do not see why you have such a problem. It had a large group from which to obtain their results.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 1:19 PM
If the study had shown that an equal number of non church attending students were as well behaved or better than the church going families then your argument would be valid. But that was not the case. The majority of the well behaved kids were from religious families.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 1:25 PM
I want more information before I come to a specific conclusion on the validity of the study. I have not rejected the study. What I have asked is that we actually see the study before jumping to conclusions for something that is, as far as I know, multifactoral.
Is church attendance the main thing? I don’t know. The authors do not know. They said so. They also said that more study is required.
Just so you are aware, I don’t particularly care that you have a degree in Social Sciences. Your degree is irrelevant until you see the study. Your anecdotal evidence doesn’t count either, just as mine doesn’t.
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 1:32 PM
You may not care about my education, fine, no big deal but I have a problem with someone who calls someone a name and then doesn’t even have the decency to explain what it means. That isn’t exactly the way to have a decent discussion.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Gee, Esthier, I gave gave you the scripture statements that you evidently didn’t know existed. That’s not stuck on repeat.
That leaves the death. Shall we see what Jesus’s own comment on the need for the atonement was?
Luke 24:25
naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Yes, I understand. That was the whole deep-sea diving thing that I mentioned.
I’m just saying that religious families have a built in activity and aparently most of them use it effectively.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 1:37 PM
gave gave is stuck on repeat however. sheez. :(
naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 1:38 PM
My opinions on religion often get me in trouble, with other atheists. It seems I am not militant enough, or at all. If you are so includes, I explain my stance on religion in the first few minutes of my first podcast. Suffice it to say, I think religion, or lack thereof, is a personal matter.
As far as studies like these goes, I see an ever increasing number of poorly constructed and/or spun studies. An example of one recently released would be a study of 60 children claiming that adverts for junk food increased a child’s appetite, causes obesity and/or (depending on the article spin) should be banned. Controlling factors like parental supervision is totally overlooked as is teaching children proper nutrition. The claims of an add increasing a child’s appetite is just junk science.
Again, the problem was that they started with a flawed basis of religion versus non-religion being beneficial. They made no effort to track or catalogue children who engage in similar non-religious activities with their families and who also would be rated as well behaved. If any such children were in that group, they were lumped in with the non-religious or non-church-going group.
Even their end claim that religion is good for kids is not supported by the facts of the study. According to the study, if both of the parents go to church and if both of them talk to their children regularly about religion and if the parents do no fight over religion then the kids are more likely to be well behaved, adjusted, etc. Take out the religious connotations for general ones and the same can be applied to non-religious families. The larger issue of parental involvement, guidance and solidarity of the parents is what is at work here more than the simplistic and watered-down claim of “religion is good for kids.”
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 1:43 PM
No, you kept talking about the same book in the Bible, a book that was written long after Jesus was brutally tortured.
In that book, Jesus appears in glory to one person after having gone through something I personally would never agree to do if I were God.
You keep making me repeat myself on this. I have read Revelation, the whole thing. Like I wrote earlier (though I supposed you didn’t feel like reading it), I consider it one of the best books, a real comic book type adventure. You’re not showing me something I haven’t seen before. I addressed what you were talking about already.
It isn’t that God won’t show Himself in the manner I described, it’s that He’s only doing so after doing something I personally would never in a million years agree to if I was an all-powerful god. My statement doesn’t change just because you’ve come up with another scripture in Revelation.
What?
First off, what are you responding to with that comment?
I’ll get to the second off after I understand the first off.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 1:43 PM
As do a large group of non-religious families, which is the point. A family acting in the fashion most of us consider a family should act in would produce similar results of children who are well disciplined and well behaved. Note that it was not only religion, but activities as a family that was beneficial and parents working together as parents.
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Which of the podcasts is yours? There are three listed on the menu of your site.
Slublog on April 25, 2007 at 1:48 PM
But as I said before they had a sampling of 16,000 students and if an equal number or better of those who were well behaved had been from secular homes then the conclusion would have been that religion was not the only factor when it comes to well behaved students. But the majority of the students who were considered well behaved came from religious families. A negative in the study would have proved your point. Other factors would have shown up if those unchurched students had been equally well behaved.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 1:50 PM
And again I apologize for being rude. There are many who are extremely anti-Christian on the site and I don’t always remember who is who.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 1:55 PM
That’s not what I meant, but I don’t know how else to say what I meant, so I’ll just leave it. This isn’t a discussion that I have any stake in anyway. I don’t have children, and I’m not all that religious.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 1:57 PM
It would be easier if we have profile pictures.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I’m sorry. All three of them are mine, but episode one of The Shallow Gene Pool is the one I meant. There is an embedded flash player on the site for each episode. http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/podcast.htm
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Esthier, here I’ve been enjoying the fact that you are so wonderfully making the Christian argument on the thread and now you say you are not all that religious? I’m confused.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Rose,
What I was saying when I said you were doing the same thing as “garble warmenizers” is this: Firstly, that is a play on the words “Global Warming”, which I thought was a known around here.
Anyway, they accept sight unseen every dire prediction put forth by their leaders and will not, under any circumstances, accept that there is more study to be done.
I don’t see how one can draw any conclusions from a single page without more data. The gentlemen publishing the study are not doing that, yet you are.
Unless you have seen this unpublished study, which you haven’t, your background in Social Science means zilch. To make it germane, is your solution to making kids better behaved (wholly subjective term, by the way) forced church attendance? Do you think that if parents start dragging their kids to chuch en masse that “behaviour” will improve?
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Thanks. I will have to look it up.
Um, after work of course.
Slublog on April 25, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Factor in the reality of our country. Secular or atheist represent a small number of families. With such a fact in mind, 16K is far too small of a sample size. And again, they were focused on the following specifically:
The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services—especially when both parents did so frequently—and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents.
Non-religious as in? Does this mean not attending worship services, both of them or just one, just arguing about religion or non-religious totally? The proper details were simply not there or taking into consideration. It almost comes across as preconceptual science. Also note how the children’s behavior was rated by parents and teachers? Why didn’t the group observer the children for a long period of time for themselves? I know you like this study, but it is just a poor one when you consider all the thing they did not account for or do in order to better quantify the data.
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 2:10 PM
JayHaw, where did you go?
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 2:12 PM
To be honest I get the impression from what I did read that the people who did the study did not expect the results that they got. There is such a desire on the part of the secular community to prove that religion is harmful to society that they are trying to come up with whatever they can to prove their point. It bothers me that people do not want to think that the results are valid because it doesn’t fit into the bash Christians mentality of a lot of people. They just can’t handle the fact that something positive could possibly come out of a Christian home. Personally, I don’t think any one should drag their kids to church, and if the home doesn’t reflect Christian attitudes it would be a fruitless act anyway.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 2:14 PM
No problem. I understand. I debate a great deal and get it from both sides. People seem to take personal offence when you question or honestly challenge their posts. And I know after a while, taking the high road gets old after being insulted over and over. Honest debate is hard to find when people are so used to dealing with insults rather than earnest debate.
You were honest enough to keep debating rather than “rant and run” as many do in so many forums.
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 2:15 PM
I still say that if a large percentage of children who never attended church had been considered well behaved the religious aspect would have been moot. The theory would have been proven false. However this was not the case. I doubt with a sample that large that all the teachers were Christian and were looking for a specific behavior. It appears that the teachers were asked their opinions of the students in regard to how they behaved in class. A somewhat simple question for any teacher to answer regarding a child they see everyday.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Our posts are overlapping. Thank you for your kind words.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Yes, but what I have seen so far does nothing to indicate if they had children who were secular as in non-religious, but they focused on participation in religious activities and attendance by one or both parents, etc. Just by known demographics, the majority of the children would be religious and it appears that many may not go to church regularly. So how in all honesty can they claim religious is good when it is not religion, but activated link to religious organizations are apparently the factor?
Also, asking the teacher is still not good enough. I have not met one teacher who is not biased in some way, shoe or form towards children in their class. In such a study, a neutral observation would be critical. You could still ask the teachers and parent to see if the neutral observation was supported by their opinions, but opinions are not good enough for a study with such an impact.
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Anytime Rose.
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Work.
I keep up on the thread on my pocket PC, but I can’t really compose a post when I’m supposed to be paying attention to the person I’m meeting with.
I check HotAir all day long but do the bulk of my posts before work, at lunch and after work.
Also, I do not think either of us is going to change the other person’s minds in this thread. I sense polarization has set in.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 25, 2007 at 2:32 PM
When the study is published it will be interesting to read all the variables and how it was handled. But I really don’t think the people doing the study were trying to prove religion to be a good thing. Perhaps they were neutral, but I really don’t think any bias would be on the side of religious families. If we find that isn’t true then I will look at the study differently.
Rose on April 25, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Hit me back later then.
PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Why do I think that should be added to the page disclaimer? LOL.
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 2:42 PM
John Bartkowski, a Mississippi State University sociologist and his colleagues asked the parents and teachers of more than 16,000 kids, most of them first-graders, to rate how much self control they believed the kids had, how often they exhibited poor or unhappy behavior and how well they respected and worked with their peers.
These kids haven’t been through the public school system yet. Give it time. It’ll knock all that “good behavior” nonsense out of them.
JackOfClubs on April 25, 2007 at 3:28 PM
As you know, I was specifically referring to your statement:
.
That’s rough all right. So, why did God not do what you would do, and instead permitted people to do that?
(Keeping in mind of course, Rule No. 1 of the universe: Don’t do anything you don’t have to do if it isn’t necessary.)
Surprised you didn’t recognize those quotes then. Maybe you just looked at the pictures?
naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 4:31 PM
I don’t mean to confuse you. I am a Christian, but when I speak of religious, I mean it in the sense that there isn’t much else religious about me. I don’t attend church regularly. I’ve fallen out of the habit of reading my Bible and praying. This year I didn’t even do anything for Easter. This is probably a temporary thing for me, but I don’t think I would qualify under the study.
Now you know what I know? No, naliaka, the truth is, if I did know what you were referring to, I wouldn’t have asked. I don’t waste my own time let alone other peoples’.
But hey, since you answered, I’ll go to my second off, what atonement have to do with the way I’d chose to display my glory is I were God?
Maybe you came into the middle of the discussion without reading what came before it. This is a common thing that happens in groups like these, but it’s annoying as hell.
I am not talking about why God did what He did. I’m only saying that I would have done something different. See, all I was doing when I said that was responding to a comment from someone else. This one:
My only point in talking about how horrible it must be to have your skin ripped from your bones is to say that I, though maybe I cannot speak for all mankind, would not have choosen that as my method of sharing faith.
I have no idea where the hell you’re going, and with your attitude against me, I’m having a hard time figuring out why I even care.
It must be a disorder.
Who says I didn’t recognize them? And seriously, you don’t even know me. What’s with the attitude? Did you get dumped last night or something?
My comment about not choosing to die on a cross and have my flesh torn had nothing to do with what happened afterwards.
Yes, if I were God, I would choose to appear to my people the way Jesus appeared to John. However, that’s not how Jesus shared His message. He shared it by dying on a cross after being tortured all day and leaving behind a group of followers who all, except for John, died in horrific ways for doing nothing but speaking a message.
If I were God, I’d skip all that unpleasantness and go straight to the glowing part, and show that glowing side of myself to more people than just the one disciple left alive.
But I’ve written that now just three times, and if you didn’t get it the first two and chose only to respond with condescending insults, then I don’t have any hope for this last one.
Though really, whatever your personal problem is, there’s no reason for you to be a dick, to me or anyone else. It’s not something I enjoy, and it doesn’t even benefit you personally.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 6:04 PM
If not public school, college is pretty good at that.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 6:06 PM
How so? I didn’t see my example as disrespectful at all. What “more to it” is there than trust that someone is telling the truth about God?
Nonfactor on April 25, 2007 at 8:51 PM
You believe we’re stupid enough to listen to anyone say anything if they claim it came from God and yet you don’t see how that is disrespectful?
Let’s just say it doesn’t work that way. There’s a reason David Koresh had limitted followers.
And Jesus wasn’t even the first to claim He was God. He’s just the first the idea stuck with thousands of years later.
There’s a reason for that. Again, if you don’t believe us, fine, but in making such an assinine assumption, you’re not even doing yourself any favors.
Esthier on April 26, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5