Study: Religion is good for kids
posted at 4:06 pm on April 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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 2 3 4 5 Next »
Getting hotter…
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Cop. out.
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Hang on, I’ll get the hose.
Tanya on April 24, 2007 at 8:23 PM
By the way Allah God doesn’t like religious people.
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 8:23 PM
You can’t be pushed to hate anyone, and if you declare that to be true, then you’ve just justified Cho’s ramage at VT to be someone else fault apart from his own.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Allah, You got a specific question (besides the headaches one)?
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 8:24 PM
It apparently is.
Look, if you want a good summary of Christian beliefs, pick up a copy of the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity. If you want an intellectual defense of the Christian faith, the Bahnsen-Stein debate is good. You can find that on CD.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:25 PM
It’s not a cop out. Sparkle said I seem to be alienated by the religious discourse here. Not true; I’m alienated by the specific line of argument I just gave you.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Or the restraining order…
Slublog on April 24, 2007 at 8:26 PM
I’m sure you don’t mean it this way, but saying “Your friends are Christian, why can’t you be?” comes off as pretty condescending.
I didn’t mean it that way at all. I’m simply asking Allah if he sees a difference. He thinks they believe in a “imaginary” friend after all. Isn’t that a bit condescending to them?
Rightwingsparkle on April 24, 2007 at 8:26 PM
No, although I don’t know what you mean by “the headaches one.”
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 8:27 PM
I like you. Please don’t go there. Cho was criminally, physiologically insane.
Tanya on April 24, 2007 at 8:27 PM
A truly good God cannot create things that are evil. God created Satan. Satan is evil.
frreal on April 24, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Yes, but Satan wasn’t originally made that way, he was originally good. He chose to be that way.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:28 PM
But did He create the evil that overtook Satan, or did He just create the free will that gave Satan the ability to follow his desires?
Slublog on April 24, 2007 at 8:29 PM
the big problem is that many christian denominations don’t even know theology anymore, witness yesterdays thread on the matter. Liberal theology, or ‘feel good’ philosophy while completely ignoring the Bible and what true Christians like Luther taught. It gives all the ammo necessary for people to find reason to not beleive in God nor know the true tenants of the faith.
jp on April 24, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Of course without the devil Christian theology sort of loses its foundations. No devil then no original sin. No original sin than no need for a savior. So I understand why you defend.
frreal on April 24, 2007 at 8:29 PM
How else do you want me to account for their belief? By accusing them of lying when they claim they believe at all? They say they talk to Jesus or have a relationship with Jesus or whatever; I say Jesus is either a fictional character or a charismatic preacher who died thousands of years ago. Assuming I’m right, then either (a) you’re talking to an imaginary person or (b) you don’t believe at all and are just putting me on. I wouldn’t insult you by claiming the latter so I’m forced to assume the former.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 8:29 PM
I don’t quite understand what you’re responding to here.
Slublog on April 24, 2007 at 8:30 PM
I thought the angels didn’t have free will Sub?
frreal on April 24, 2007 at 8:30 PM
The uh, forgotten exit question.. nm
I’m not a theologian, but I think we Christians have an obligation to spread the gospel. Kinda part of the job. I guess some of us take it too far. Shame
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Sparkle said I seem to be alienated by the religious discourse here. Not true; I’m alienated by the specific line of argument I just gave you.
This is what you said: (your emphasis)
Yeah, well, no matter how many times I warn religious people how offensive and alienating it is when they pull the “you only criticize religion because you secretly want to believe!” argument, they keep on pulling it. So, pull away.
So my point is why ask questions to those you know will follow a line argument that will alienate you?
Rightwingsparkle on April 24, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Adam could have killed the serpent. Adam chose to follow the devil. The devil didn’t force Adam to sin.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Yes, they do.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:31 PM
I don’t believe there is a scriptural basis for that belief. It’s more traditional than scriptural.
Slublog on April 24, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Because not everyone here follows that line of argument. You do, Professor Blather does, maybe a few others. No one else.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 8:32 PM
You’ll lose a lot of readers saying that… Just so ya know. That is pretty offensive stuff.
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 8:34 PM
I second this, and would add Francis Schaeffers philosophical works along with CS Lewis
jp on April 24, 2007 at 8:34 PM
(Woman with woman is, mercifully, allowed!)
So, color me confused!
CountAgion on April 24, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Uhh yeah. Is that a question about woman on women sex? As far as I am concerned the jury’s still out on the Bush lied subject.
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Robert Ingersoll
frreal on April 24, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Don’t you have an answer for that?
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Note to Gregor:
1) Better is a human concept not a divine one. All sin is equal.
2) No one “deserves” heaven. Salvation is a gift.
Note to Tanya:
1) No one can force you to beleive or is even capable of that. It would mean they were God and able to bend your will. That is not God’s plan our method. Freewill is an important part of salvation.
2) Hell is a choice, not a threat.
3) I think you illustrate a point. The “good” thing. Hey atheists are good people too is something I think you want Christians to recognize. Well good to a Christian is relative. None is good save God. Not even Christians think they are good. It is a fundamental difference.
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Who is Ingersoll? I’ve never heard of him.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Your faith must be pretty shaky if you can’t debate something as mild as that statement.
Bradky on April 24, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Is Jesus fictional or dead? Do I have an answer for that? He’s very much alive. Never seen him, but he’s a good friend and brother.
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 8:37 PM
It’s “offensive” to dare suggest that Christ might not be divine? Isn’t that the whole point of the Christian faith — to believe in his divinity notwithstanding the fact that everything we know about life points towards the fact that people aren’t divine and can’t rise from the dead?
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Dude, it’s obvious you’re just dying to stick a Jesus fish to your car, buy a Stryper album and start listening to James Dobson every day.
Just go with your desires, man.
Slublog on April 24, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Good. And how do you know this?
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Allah,
What have I said that could possibly alienate you? I haven’t said you were stupid for not believing. I said you were intelligent. I never suggested that you “secretly wanted to believe.” I explained how I got the answers to the questions yo9u asked and I asked you questions to think about in the context of real life people.
Explain to me how that is alienating?
Rightwingsparkle on April 24, 2007 at 8:38 PM
The idea that people think I talk to imaginary people when I pray.. it used to offend me, but who the hell cares what they think.
I know it’s real. My prayers have been answered in pretty plain ways.
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 8:39 PM
The essay is interesting, but using an agnostic to prove a theological point seems a bit dicey, don’t you think?
Slublog on April 24, 2007 at 8:40 PM
The Christian faith rests on the fact that Jesus was God come in the flesh, and that he died for our sins and rose again for our justification.
Now, the idea that people can’t rise from the dead is an externally imposed standard. Who says God can’t raise from the dead? It’s a presupposition, not a fact, that God can’t raise people from the dead.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:40 PM
What does how you feel have to do with truth? It’s not about your feelings.
Bad Penny on April 24, 2007 at 8:41 PM
I suppose you guys want some empirical data to back up my faith… I was skeptical about God, I thought He was a jerk if he even existed. So one night I was pissed off and I prayed to this imaginary God, to tell him off. I cried. Since then we have had a pretty strong connection.
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 8:43 PM
If God could do something as magnificant as creating the Universe, rising from the dead shouldn’t be too hard to beleive.
its interesting that the greatest Sin in Islam is the beleif in the Triune God.
jp on April 24, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Tanya, you know that the media is pushing that Cho’s manifesto was all about his being bullyied and abused and all these terrible things so he wasn’t responsible for his rage. First out was, “He was spurned by a girl.” Then, the line is “He did it because Americans drove him to hate.” You didn’t buy that, and rightly so.
I don’t think you realized what you said, but it’s been said before by many through the years. Christians get beaten and killed. Awareness of that harsh history is underlying many of the reactions that are showing up on this thread.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 8:44 PM
You could start by saying, “I know because the Bible tells me so.”
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:45 PM
I think that if this statement were used in a thread about slavery and reparations some of the outraged Christians in this thread would have a completely opposite opinion that is less than charitable.
Bradky on April 24, 2007 at 8:47 PM
I don’t run my life to hang on every biblical word. It was translated by man, it’s imperfect. All I’m saying is that I found God before I actually picked up the Bible and started reading.
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Have you studied the transmission of the Bible?
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:50 PM
Okay, so if I tell you my best friend Jimmy died a few years ago but was raised from the dead, you’ll believe me, right? Because God can do anything, so why shouldn’t it be true?
Riddle me this, too. If Jesus rose from the dead, why isn’t the Mormon story of Joseph Smith receiving the golden plates equally true? It happened much closer to our own time, when scientific knowledge was more advanced than in Jesus’s day, and it’s actually marginally more credible on the facts since it doesn’t involve reanimation of a corpse. But meanwhile, Mitt Romney is looked at askance by many people for believing in something so ridiculous. See the problem here?
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 8:50 PM
Then you might want to start using better arguements Allah. Because this amounts to the same thing.
If that is not true then please provide an example. He has a biblical account to base his belief on. Where is the account of suffering that your belief is based on? If you don’t have a basis for that statement then you are just in this thread to throw jabs, since you have already stated you do not have a specific question.
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 8:51 PM
There are external evidences that the resurrection account was true, at least 37 of them. There are also reasons why Christianity never would have made it out of the ancient world if the resurrection did not happen. The New Testament is historically accurate.
Most compellingly, he died according to the Scriptures, and rose again according to the Scriptures. Circular argument, right? All logic ultimately is.
Not every truth is scientifically verifiable. Indeed, scientific truth is derived using an external tautology: the scientific method. Also, scientific knowledge changes all the time. Scientists can’t weigh all the evidence, nor do they know everything, nor are they infallible, nor do they often know where to look.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:57 PM
I’m not a theologian and have not studied the history of the numerous transmissions of Bibles. I know enough to know that the Bible is very old, and that human beings translated it. Yeah the one I read is not in Hebrew.
But if you and Allah think I’m crazy by talking to thin air, then I feel for you guys. I don’t want to sound condescending, but you’re missing out. If you don’t believe anything is there, how can you be sure? Why should we carry the burden of proof? Religion has been around for a long time. How hard is it to just ask Him if he’s there. If you don’t get your proof, then you tried and you got nothin to worry about.
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 8:57 PM
To rely on scientific evidence is to be in a position of total uncertainty.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:58 PM
For someone that doesn’t care about religion except when it intrudes on politics. Should you not be hip deep in this thread Allah?
Exit question: A serious one. Have you ever looked in the bible for answers?
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 8:58 PM
What’s the point of believing if you don’t know if it’s true or not.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:59 PM
How else do you want me to account for their belief? By accusing them of lying when they claim they believe at all? They say they talk to Jesus or have a relationship with Jesus or whatever; I say Jesus is either a fictional character or a charismatic preacher who died thousands of years ago. Assuming I’m right, then either (a) you’re talking to an imaginary person or (b) you don’t believe at all and are just putting me on. I wouldn’t insult you by claiming the latter so I’m forced to assume the former.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 8:29 PM
HEH HEH HEH HEH The devil is in the details. Assuming that Jesus actually exist. The Big J did teach some awesome stuff. He gave us a basic blueprint for living. The principals he set forth work in everyday life. Speaking as a former Catholic (5 years parochial school)even the Rosary has the mysteries. All things of God are not known, at least by me. There is a degree of belief (faith) needed. But my point being it’s great you have an open mind on the subject and yes over zealous people can do more harm than good trying to debate or prove this issue. There are different degrees of “spreading the word”. Some are called to plant the seed, some are called to water the seed, some are called to harvest the fruit. Anyway Bud good luck with that. If your looking for answers I hope you find them.
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 8:59 PM
You’d get a pretty hot reaction from me, that’s for sure. Having lived in countries populated with real slaves, living in harsh conditions, who are slaves at this moment, and who would be subjected to cruel tortures if they were to attempt to escape, and to see fat, well-dressed Americans who live in decent homes, with TVS and cars and cable and refrigerators who want “reparations” from people who haven’t been part of or ever even seen slavery for the past 140 years, much less imposed it on anyone, does make my blood boil.
If that proposed money was to be spent on liberating slaves from their masters tomorrow and giving them a new start in life, with their own property and schooling to make something of themselves, and their children, then I’d be all for it. I’m charitable to those who need charity, not to those who don’t. Furthermore, I have found in life that most people who truly truly need help, never ask for it. They just die. Most people who do ask, could do better, but aren’t making the effort, but they sure have a sob story. Separating the sheep from the goats. That’s Christian.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Yes. “Love thy neighbor.” Tell it to Osama.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Galatians 1:8 is why most Christians do not accept the story of Joseph Smith. There are too many things that contradict Christianity as it was laid out by the original apostles.
Rose on April 24, 2007 at 9:01 PM
I answered yesterday’s “simple question” and you accused me of jumping down your throat.
It was a good answer too.
John on April 24, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Angels have a choice not freewill. Satan has freewill.
There isn’t a scriptual basis to beleive angels exert freewill in heaven. Angels choose between obedience and rebellion. Their choice is singular. Once cast out of heaven freewill is obtained.
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Sadly, there’s no golden rule in Islam. Ask Bob Spencer.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Re-read what you wrote. You contradicted youself.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 9:04 PM
/snark.
What answer were you looking for?
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 9:05 PM
So how many Christians do you know personally who have been beaten or killed for their beliefs?
Bradky on April 24, 2007 at 9:05 PM
What’s the point of believing if you don’t know if it’s true or not.
Got me there. I know God’s there, but I have no clue about his plan. I haven’t seen him, or heard his voice, so maybe that’s a little faith right there.
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Two. They were beaten, not killed.
Slublog on April 24, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Watch South Park’s episode on Mormans and you won’t ask that question. They didn’t make it up.
In the meantime, not a single Biblical prophecy points to Upstate New York. Bethlehem, Egypt, Nazareth, Jerusalem are the key cities/regions of the prophecy of the Messiah, stated centuries before.
Oh, boy, AP. In no mood to start that off again. You know what I mean.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 9:07 PM
The Christian faith doesn’t let you off the hook with that answer. Paul wrote that if you believe and it’s not true, you’re to be pitied above all men. Better to eat, drink, and be merry.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 9:08 PM
It’s “offensive” to dare suggest that Christ might not be divine? Isn’t that the whole point of the Christian faith — to believe in his divinity notwithstanding the fact that everything we know about life points towards the fact that people aren’t divine and can’t rise from the dead?
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Now hold on there. What side of this thing are you arguing?
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Let’s try this again because people seem to be having trouble following me. I’m not saying that all arguments against atheism alienate me. I’m saying that the specific argument Sparkle chose — the “you secretly believe and that’s why you care about religion!” false-consciousness argument — alienates me.
I have no idea what you’re getting at with that question. You seem to be implying that no belief, religious or atheist, is valid unless it’s based on some account of suffering. I don’t believe there’s a god and don’t believe Christ was divine. Suffering has absolutely nothing to do with it. I brought it up because someone earlier suggested that Christ must be divine because he had endured such a terrible ordeal. To which I replied, others have endured worse and they’re not divine, so what does the suffering prove?
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Deity help us when we use South Park for debate references!
Bradky on April 24, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Choice is singular. Freewill is plural. I know exactly what I wrote.
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 9:10 PM
That makes no sense.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Pity me then. I know it’s true. I haven’t seen his face, heard his voice, but I know. Pity away. And I am Mormon, now can everybody call me crazy.
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 9:11 PM
1) What did Christ endure?
2) What was worse than that?
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Great discussion. I need to do more of these. Thanks Allah.
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Yes, this is what these debates ultimately devolve into — the denigration of logic, evidence, and experience as no more or less persuasive than Christian doctrine. I tell you that the resurrection is contrary to all known reality and you say, “So what? God can do anything!” I tell you that there’s no good reason to find the gospels any more persuasive than the Book of Mormon and you say, “Logic is overrated!” I think we’re nearing the endpoint of this debate, my friends.
And ancient far eastern religious texts don’t point to Judea or Christ. You’re using the Bible as a reference point for its own truth, which of course you have to do but which is also completely illogical. Yeah, yeah, I know — logic is overrated.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 9:15 PM
I agree with you. You can’t prove this stuff, not even make a persuasive argument. All you can do is ask Him yourself.
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 9:17 PM
This is a totally pointless argument but since you want to play, fine. He endured foreknowledge of his own death and an excruciatingly painful end. So do protesters who light themselves on fire. So do people like Bobby Sands who starve themselves to death. But here’s the difference: the protesters and Bobby Sands didn’t have the rather important incentive of resurrection and eternal blissful glory and power waiting for them on the other side of death. They may have hoped and believed they did, but they didn’t know it like Jesus supposedly did. So once again, who made the bigger sacrifice?
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 9:19 PM
No doubt. I wasn’t suggesting this at all. I was simply referring to Allah’s comment that suggests that a prerequisite for entry into Heaven is that we believe in God. My point is that I think it is a much more honorable and Holy thing to live your life doing good without the knowledge that God is looking over your shoulder than it would be knowing He’s there.
It’s much like a child. A “good” child will do what’s right simply because they feel it’s the right thing to do. I’d take this quality before that of a child who does good deeds simply because they know their father is looking through the window. I tend to believe that God feels the same way.
The intent of my comment wasn’t to accuse Christians of acting out of fear – although there are SOME who obviously do – but was meant to suggest that belief in God is sometimes not needed for entry into Heaven.
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 9:22 PM
There is good reason to find the gospels more compelling than the Book of Mormon: the Book of Mormon, like the Qur’an, relies on the Bible for evidence of its truth- claims, however the Book of Mormon and the Qur’an contradict the Bible. Both are later documents that have faulty presuppositions.
As to your other point, you are saying that you are certain that Jesus did not rise from the dead because of scientific evidence. I’m telling you that that that doesn’t guarantee you anything but complete uncertainty. Not only does science change it’s claims all the time, but science itself relies on logic to find out anything. Science itself relies on unscientifically verifiable truth.
Christian truth-claims, however, rely on the Word of God. Circular logic, I know. But ultimately, you’re dependent on yourself, and you are fallible, as the ultimate arbiter of truth, or on the Word of God.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 9:22 PM
True dat. It’s like having a child. I never knew what anyone was talking about until I experienced it. Now I have three beautiful ones, and will never know how I got along without them. Same with God. Until you experience Him, you’ll never understand. And before anyone says, “Yeah, but I can touch a child and know that they exist”, the same can be said about other things you’ve experienced, like love. Nobody truly understands until they’ve experienced it.
And if that makes me a child, then I’m happy to be a Child of God.
Matticus Finch on April 24, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Logic is by no means overrated. I never made that claim.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Allah, it appears that way. We worship Jesus because if it weren’t for him we wouldn’t be able to be forgiven. He’s not our hero for being a tough guy who can take some pain. He’s the son of God. God watched his own son go through immense pain so we could be with Him.
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Logic ultimately rests on a set of presuppositions.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Allah,
In case you are able to read all the posts addressed to you:
It used to give me pause and angst when I learned people I admired were atheist (Douglas Adams and Dave Barry come to mind). I think it’s because at the time I was insecure in my own faith; I wanted to believe but felt that reason was telling me otherwise.
I think I learned a crucial point in the past year or so, while getting sober, and it’s been alluded to by several believers above. Faith in God is an experiential thing, not an intellectual exercise. Just as a hammer will not help you turn a screw, the intellect does not seem to me to be the best tool to experience God. As I’ve learned in AA, some things you just have to try and see what happens before making a judgement. I had to quit arguing and just do what was suggested, and amazing things began to happen.
And it is possible, I think, to be as certain of God’s existence as of one’s own mother’s. I think the things we believe most firmly often are not arrived at through reason. A person who is suffering with pain, for example, knows this beyond any doubt, even more strongly than he knows that 2+2=4.
In a way, I think appreciating spirituality is like tuning in to a radio station. If you aren’t tuned in, you won’t receive it. But if you try, you may be surprised.
mikeyboss on April 24, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Boy, ain’t that the truth!
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 24, 2007 at 9:29 PM
If faith isn’t intellectually defensible, not much point in having it.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 9:29 PM
A religion/politics thread deserves a famous Reagan Speech
http://dlbthoughts.com/Rptclass.aspx?category=Favorite%20Articles%20by%20Others
jp on April 24, 2007 at 9:29 PM
I think that’s completely true, but we can have all sorts of experiences that aren’t real. Certain drugs will induce hallucinations; we see and hear things as though they were there, but they really aren’t. The role intellect plays is in trying to determine if an experience is real or not. We can’t prove it either way, but we can make an intelligent guess.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Belief alone is not the “bare threshold for admission into heaven”.
“You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” (James 2:19)
It’s not about belief, it’s about confessing your sins to God and then accepting the gift Christ gave.
Emilie H. on April 24, 2007 at 9:32 PM
You say to Allah that all he has to do is believe, let God love him, let him in, simple as that. His reason tells him he can’t do that. You insist that’s all there is. How is that not asking him to accept Christ on something other than what his reason tells him?
Anwyn on April 24, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Or at least to believe in God, based on something other than what his reason tells him?
Anwyn on April 24, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 9:19 PM
No fair Allah, I asked you a simple question. You keep complaining about that arguements. You sought to dismantle his belief because others have “suffered” more, not sacrificed. The sacrifice tangent doesn’t play. If his beleif is unsound then answer those two simple question. You simply don’t want to because you know no one has endured more, no one. So if he wants to beleive because of that then let him, and find a new arguement against. Or supply the person that endured more and his basis for beleif is crushed.
Using sacrifice is crapola if you are a athiest. Jesus sacrificed less because he had a better incentive? Heh. You also left out the fact that he could have ended his suffering by renouncing hmiself. Let this cup pass from me, but not my will but thy will be done. He choose his fate Allah. What would be messiah/crakpot went to their end in any way shape form or fashion that Jesus did, when they didn’t have to? Not only that there were other would be messiahs that came and went in Jesus’ day. Would they have not had the same incentive? they didn’t last because they were not God.
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 9:36 PM
I’m sorry, but it’s also hogwash to say “the intellect isn’t the best tool with which to experience God” (paraphrased). It may wind up that it’s not the best but it doesn’t follow that you can’t experience God through the intellect at all. Frankly, if you can’t, then that’s not the God who created the intellect to begin with. Or the one who is the original intellect himself.
Anwyn on April 24, 2007 at 9:37 PM
I linked Bahnsens son’s site above with Reagan speech. In case you weren’t aware one of his son’s had a site, although being from california and reformed I have a feeling you may have already knew this. His review of Mark Steyn’s “America Alone” is fascinating. And of course he has alot on his dad.
jp on April 24, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Ok, Allah I don’t know why didn’t answer me, but I am sorry if anything I said alienated you. I truly didn’t mean to. I have a bad habit of typing things that come out very different from what I mean or how I would sound if I were actually talking to you.
I didn’t mean to imply that your friends have more peace or happiness than you. I don’t know that. You might have it all over them. I just don’t know. I just wanted you to think about it.
You are a very intelligent talented guy. There is no doubt of that.(and word has it that you are cute as well) If you are happy with your life, then more power to you. I certaintly don’t think any less of you because you are an atheist. I’m just glad you are on our side. I just figured if you put out a thread like this, then you would want to know what I (or anyone) thinks.
Rightwingsparkle on April 24, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »