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 »
I’m not exactly sure what your point is here. You’re responding to my comment, which was …
In Acts 2 and 4, Peter and John did exactly what I suggested. They spread Jesus’ message as best they could. Sure, I guess you can take that message and say they were “defending God”, but was this their “task?” I don’t believe so. God did not say … go forth and defend my honor.
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Well, personally, several. You are thinking inside the box. I lived in Africa. The spectre of attacks on Christians is always there. As expats, we avoided most direct problems, but attacks on Christian churches are common in Africa, by not only Muslims, but by pagan witchcraft groups. Tensions between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria have resulted in rioting and lynchings for years, just worse these days. There are places the unwary traveller does not go in Lagos, Nigeria, because the witchdoctors are on the streets, lurking for human sacrifices for their high rituals. Our pastor’s sister was travelling through Ghana, she a Ghanian herself, when her vehicle was stopped by a roadblock set up by ritualists who were snatching people for their sacrifices. She escaped into the brush until they left, having found enough hostages for their quota. Think of an urban city of ten million, with cyber cafes, resturants, shopping malls, etc – the trappings of modern life, yet with people being sacrificed to dieties to conjure up electoral success for politicians. Witchdoctors don’t like Christians because they undermine their powerbase and control. I met a Lebanese woman at our church in West Africa who was beaten by her Muslim husband. She was separated from him and sat in front every Sunday, her head bowed, weeping. ANother fellow we knew was constantly finding witchcraft things that had been set against him because he wouldn’t let the local staff abuse the orphan kids under his care. One staff chained a crazy guy to the front door of the infants orphanage to try to scare the Christian ladies away who came to help take care of the babies, becuase the staff didn’t want prying eyes inside the facility they were mismanaging.
All the international humanitarian aid programs that exist today were started because of Christian ideals. Also India. I didn’t know the family, but while we were there, the Indians did have a first anniversary memorial for the Christian missionary who was burned alive inside his vehicle as he slept along with his two young sons, by Hindu ultrafundamentalists. Missionaries who walk the dusty paths to the villages to teach school, run health clinics and preach the gospel to small groups in ragged open air churches are in constant danger. Little children, even in India (everyone thinks vegetarians are harmless) are sacrificed for the purpose of attracting riches to the parents. Most Indians don’t do that, but it’s there and is known. People who do those sort of things don’t like people coming in and exposing their racket.
You all have a very bland, boring view of Christianity as it seems in America, so you don’t understand how liberating it is to people who are trapped in fear of evil spirits and spiritual attacks by demons and enemies. There’s a world out there. It’s no accident that the ascendent pastors and priests of the old mainline churches are coming out of the Third World. There’s a new bunch coming up who have no patience for the mushy, heretical Leftie goo that passes for preaching these days.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 9:41 PM
I’m sorry, but it’s also hogwash to say “the intellect isn’t the best tool with which to experience God” (paraphrased
I didn’t say that either. I was just saying one doesn’t have to be educated or intelligent even to have a belief or relationship with God.
Rightwingsparkle on April 24, 2007 at 9:41 PM
this is something I think we all are guilty of.
jp on April 24, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Funny enough, they are exceptionally good at mocking hypocrisy.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Yes, right. No one has endured more. No victim of the Nazis, no victim of Stalin, no victim of the countless degenerate despots who ruled the world in ages past when cruelty was considered entertainment. No one even among the many, many, many other people crucified by the Romans endured anything so terrible as Jesus. The same Jesus who, once again, was assured all the comforts of heaven once his ordeal was over, as opposed to every last other victim I just named.
I can’t prove for a fact that Jesus didn’t suffer more than anyone in history and you can’t prove that he did. But given that I’ve got 10 billion or so people to choose from on my side and you’ve got only one on yours, which of us is more likely to be right? See what I mean about logic?
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Point conceded, but there’s not much “guessing” about them defending their faith in Christ, though they weren’t specifically tasked to do so.
So were they wrong?
Matticus Finch on April 24, 2007 at 9:44 PM
I didn’t mean to suggest that a person can’t experience God throught the intellect at all. Actually, I think, in trying to understand how the universe came to be, etc, the intellectual validity of atheism and religion is about a wash. Both end up leaving questions the human intellect, at least mine, can’t answer.
For me, the point is acknowledging that my intellect is limited. (Feel free to make fun of that :)
mikeyboss on April 24, 2007 at 9:45 PM
I’m asumming from your posts that you are a Christian. So I also assume that you obey God. Angels obey God. Here is the difference. While you are obeying God you can choose what shirt to wear. What car to drive. Which route you like to take to work. Freewill. Angels do not make such choices, plural. Angels have a singular choice. What God tells them to do. Angels have a choice at any given moment in time, obey, or disobey. Their one choice is always in the present. You have freewill you can plan for the future, learn from the past, yet the present for you is a concept. for angels it is an eternal single choice. Not freewill. Call it a philosophical difference.
Later, I’m on the West coast so I’m off to enjoy a sunset on this randomly arranged ball of mud floating in space…
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Off topic to Tanya,
Do you live on a boat?
mikeyboss on April 24, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I know you didn’t. Somebody else did, up the thread. That’s why I put it in a different comment … I’ll differentiate more next time.
And I’m not saying somebody has to be educated or intelligent to believe in God. I’m saying you don’t have to ditch your intelligence in order to believe in God.
Anwyn on April 24, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Whaaaat?
Haven’t you heard? We Christians are poor, uneducated and easy to command!
Slublog on April 24, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Heh.
Anwyn on April 24, 2007 at 9:52 PM
10 billion people have died so what are the odds Jesus endured the most?
Considering you haven’t provided the least bit of evidence, I’d say pretty good. No modern day equvalents at all, I don’t think many scourges were performed. But lets look at history. How were people crucified Allah? Not on a cross usually. It was usually done on a pole. They died quicker and it was cheaper. Any historical accounts of someone recieving 39 lashes with a scourge? Was that common practice? How many people had to go through scouring, being beaten beyond recognition, and crucified over an elongated period? Salient questions given your premise. You won’t like the answers, or will never look for them…
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Well, the eastern 3 wise men used ancient texts to follow the star, so there was written precedent from independent texts, and Herod panicked based on those same ancient prophecies to order his soldiers to kill all children under the age of two in Bethlehem in an attempt to kill the king foretold to come from there. Likewise, Pharoah’s wise men told him of ancient Egyptian prophecies that foretold a deliverer out of the Hebrews so he used that as his basis for slaughtering all the Hebrew male infants.
AS for the other point, I thought you were specifically talking about Morman claims regarding the gold plates. My point was, there’s nothing apart from Morman documents that supports that claim. There are independent historical evidences that back up plenty of Biblical claims, however. So, the two claims are not equivalent, that’s all. Logic is good, it works.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Logic?
from the “great debate”
jp on April 24, 2007 at 9:55 PM
It’s no accident that the ascendent pastors and priests of the old mainline churches are coming out of the Third World. There’s a new bunch coming up who have no patience for the mushy, heretical Leftie goo that passes for preaching these days.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 9:41 PM
I call it the gift of desporation. It has a way of sparking hope. I totally agree with your assessment that Christian based missionaries are the foundation of much of the charitable aid around the world today. Exit Question:#1 Is this a good or bad thing? #2 Why would anyone do such a thing?
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 9:57 PM
BWAHAHA!
Okay I’m leaving, really.
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 9:59 PM
You’re using an unanswerable question to suggest it’s not real.
Try answering these.
What’s at the end of space?
What’s on the other side of the end?
How did the “everything” begin from dust and gas? Aren’t “dust and gas” … something?
What created the dust and gas, or if not created … where did it come from?
How do you create something, from nothing?
If man evolved from Apes, what did apes evolve from, and did the first living creature just suddenly appear from nothing? What’s nothing?
It’s interesting that Atheists use the excuse that God can not be proven or explained to defend their doubt, yet they stand so strongly behind science, which is even more lost when it comes to answers. Almost every single thing scientists have claimed as truth throughout history, has eventually been found to be incorrect. Every three or four years they change their mind about what’s healthy and what’s unhealthy. Eat an egg, don’t eat an egg. Wine is good for you, wine is bad for you. The truth is … scientists know absolutely nothing. They simply offer us their best “theories.”
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 10:02 PM
I think it’s silly to debate if Christ suffered more than anyone else on earth. That isn’t the point. He was just the only one to suffer and die being one without sin, totally innocent and dying for our sins.
That’s the belief. That’s what makes it different.
Rightwingsparkle on April 24, 2007 at 10:02 PM
jp-
I’ve never heard that. That is funny.
Matticus Finch on April 24, 2007 at 10:05 PM
its an excerpt from “The great debate” by Dr. Bahnsen(reformed Christian) and Dr. Stein the atheist. this was over 20 years ago, it was mentioned earlier in the thread I beleive.
jp on April 24, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Whew. Me too.
Exit question #1: Basically it’s good. Life is worth preserving. Yes, it can be abused, but that’s separate issue of management. Having worked on humanitarian aid emergencies, it’s indescribable and humbling to see the relief of a battered and hungry group of men, women and children get food and water, and have people help them, when all about are not.
Exit question #2: I’m not sure I understand the question, but I’ll try this : Why do people leave their comforts behind and help people they don’t know a long way from home in a tough place? Because it’s good, it’s right and it’s incredibly fulfilling. One of my favorite charities is Mercy Ships. Go check out their website to just see the work they do – unbelievable. They provide top notch medical care to Third World countries, with a lot of reconstructive surgery. It’s awesome what they do. It’s unbelievable to learn how people are suffering for things that go out of control that we take care of easily and early in the US.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 10:10 PM
I’m not an atheist. I honestly wanted to see what frreal thought, but he seems more interested in tossing rhetorical grenades than actually engaging in debate.
Slublog on April 24, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Oh sheesh.
Perhaps I should have said: Oh, Jesus.
Going on 400 comments.
Same people making the same arguments and getting to the same place: exactly nowhere.
I am so starting a blog with every other post about religion. Heck, who needs the post? Just suggest a few comments on God.
I suspect if there is a God, that He isn’t the greatest fan of threads like this one.
Which is why I worship Jessica Alba.
Professor Blather on April 24, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. It isn’t a matter of how much he suffered but rather why he died. To understand that you have to have an understanding of the sacrifices according to Jewish law. However, faith does not require this understanding only that we believe His death and resurrection did in fact happen and it happened so we may have forgiveness.
So if you want to know why it happened the way it did you will have to study rabbinical sacrifices but it is not necessary to do so in order to have faith.
Rose on April 24, 2007 at 10:27 PM
I dunno about that. Curiously enough, we all have been talking about Him with great energy for hours, instead of say, playing video games.
Course you could ponder that if Jessica Alba is typical of God’s more delightful efforts, He might just be a pretty interesting God after all. :D
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 10:27 PM
By the way, Allah: for the record, this conversation has exactly nothing to do with policy.
So what’s your new excuse for your God obsession?
And if there is no God – how *do* you explain Jessica Alba?
Good luck with that one.
Professor Blather on April 24, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Jessica Alba’s cousin is a good friend of my son’s. She used to be a Christian but it seems she isn’t any more. Or maybe her beliefs have become somewhat dormant.
Rose on April 24, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Time for AP’s
*heart-ache*
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 10:31 PM
May the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit Bless you All, Keep you Safe and Free from Harm, Fill your Hearts with Love, Guide you and your Entire Family throughout Your Long Lives, and Bless You with an Abundance of Love and Prosperity………….
PinkyBigglesworth on April 24, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Let’s be careful. This is the exact sort of arrogant, know it all display which gives Christians a bad rap and feeds Allah’s anti-Christian slant. To believe that YOU have all the “truths”, “facts”, and “correct information” simply because you’ve “studied” is just pure nonsense. While you may be correct some of the time, it’s a sure bet that you’re not right all of the time. Otherwise, you might as well stop studying now and call yourself God.
Who exactly did you study with? Just to use an example, without knowing your exact situation, what makes you believe that five people sitting in a dorm room debating the Bible can come up with all the answers any more than a Bishop who’s spent all of 65 years devoting his entire life to God’s teachings? Have you ever met a Bishop, or a Priest, or a POPE who has said he had ALL the answers? So what makes you believe YOU do? The most common answer here is … “because we asked God for the answers and he gave them to us.” Unfortunately, there are millions of other people from all different faiths who have “asked God for the answers” and they ALL feel they are on the right path. Do you feel you spend more time praying to God than the most devoted radical Muslim? Why are they so off base? Or, are they?
I don’t know the answers. You don’t know the answers. The Pope doesn’t have all the answers. If simply “asking God” and “studying” were what’s needed, don’t you think they would know everything by now?
Show a little modesty. That is, unless you’re Jesus Christ.
Oh wait. Even HE was modest. My bad.
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 10:38 PM
I agree with you, and that’s why I chose suffering as my example. As you stated, our senses can fool us. But a person who is suffering knows he is suffering beyond any doubt. This is an example of a belief established by experience that is held with greater certitude than any belief arrived at through logic.
mikeyboss on April 24, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Further to Gregor’s last comment (10:38 PM), how do Christians know that they “have it right”. I’ve demonstrated in other threads that modern Christianity is a pastiche of other religions, so why are Christians “right”? Even that is a misnomer, as there are hundreds upon hundreds of sects and offshoots.
It’s not loving God that makes one a Christian, but acceptance of Christ as Messiah. Surely, though, one has to be more correct than the others.
It sure would be ironic if the only Christians who got it right were the Gnostics.
Krydor on April 24, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Yep. I’ve heard that. And I’ll stick with my “human” belief that God would be more pleased with “good at heart” than “good for reward.”
I could of course, be wrong. I’m not sure I’d bow to a God who would turn a good person away at the gates. If Mother Teresa had done the same works, without ever believing in God … would God turn His back on such a woman? I would think not. Any any God who would do such a thing, would see me follow her as she walks away. I’d want no part of this Heaven.
Yes, I’ve got the confidence to say such a thing and I think my God would respect that. I will not bow to God out of fear, but of love.
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Gregor,
I was addressing the basis of some of the statements like “God created evil.” That’s not true, but it is commonly repeated in the culture. It’s stated that God is good, and everything good comes from God. It is also stated that evil entered the world by sin.
I assumed that Christians, Protestants and Catholics alike, knew that. So I wasn’t … addressing … them?
Is it not correct to defend the faith from inaccurate quotes or deductions so that the debate stays on fair ground? People do have questions that they do want answers to, but the first step is to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing. What do they always say? Read the instructions first, then try to assemble the thing.
Can you go back and read my posts with that perspective?
Let’s see, there was another question, and it’s really a pretty good one, did Jesus suffer any more than anyone else?
The answer would be technically physically, the suffering was indeed greater than most peoples’ – flogged for a crime he didn’t commit, mocked, forced to drag the heavy cross he was going to be nailed to, stripped naked for humiliation, big nails driven through his hands, and feet, then to hang in agony for hours before dying is very very rough stuff, but Saddam pushed people through chipper shredders which was horrific, but faster. A Chinese pastor last year was run over by a steamroller, executed for preaching out of his house without permission. Can’t imagine how awful his last moments were. So, with history full of flayings and hearts being chopped out, hard to say that it was the worse ever ever, but it was bad, a truly painful and humiliating way to die. Especially if you hadn’t done anything to deserve it.
But, the key to the crucifixion is something no one could actually see with their eyes. It states that ALL the sin of the world was placed on Jesus. That would be such horrors as the sin of Adolph Hitler, Mao, Saddam, etc, all through time, from beginning to end, everyone’s sin all placed on an innocent man. It was so awful, that God turned His face away from Jesus who cried out, “My God why hast thou forsaken me?”
That’s what makes that particular death so important, not the physical trauma.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 11:15 PM
What’s wrong AP? need to get the hit count up?
csdeven on April 24, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Allah, I have an incredible amount of respect for you. In fact, I probably have even more after having read through these threads. I’m easily offended when it comes to Christianity, but that’s mostly because I know so many people who have nothing but disrespect for Christians. Though here you are, constantly bringing up religious topics, knowing you’ll get the same condescending line and do it anyway.
And on this:
You’re exactly correct. Christians who can’t accept this question must learn to develop a thicker skin. We forget sometimes that it is ridiculous on the surface. If it wasn’t it wouldn’t require faith and thus would be nothing more than a science.
But really, come on. This concept comes from the idea that Christians are less admirable for their good than atheists. What’s the point in that? You were just earlier talking about how comparing pain doesn’t make for a religion. But now comparing beliefs makes a good person?
Atheists do good because they believe it is right. Christians do good for the same reason. The only difference is that they get together in groups to encourage each other to do good because we find friendship in a belief in a supernatural being. For all I know, atheists meet together as well, and then the above argument is moot.
So it was just magic then? Sin was housed in a fruit and unleashed upon eating? Sorry, I don’t buy it.
We learn good from evil by doing one over the other. You can argue that the tree had powers but either way, Adam and Eve directly disobeyed God and thus understood what sin was.
When I disobeyed my parents, after being sad over being caught, I understood what it meant to do something I shouldn’t.
In a manner, it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil simply because God picked it. He could have picked any tree and said, “don’t eat it,” and it would have become the tree that Adam and Eve used to disobey God and thus learn what it means to sin.
Believe whatever you want about my theology, but if you cannot think of God in terms outside of fairy tales, then your god is 2 dimensional and not someone I’m interested in hearing about. I don’t mean that as an insult, just a personal preference.
Not quite. God created people, and people then sinned. It’s not as though God created people and simultaneously they sinned.
But really, God didn’t created good either, since good cannot be defined without evil.
God merely created people and gave them free will. They were welcome to chose their paths in life. Some paths are evil, some are good, but those are words we use to define things that are done based on the intent of those who do it and the result of what has been done.
Good and Evil are not tangible things that can be created but rather a judgment call on actions of others. Actions cannot be objectively defined as either evil or good. Both rely heavily on the intentions of those involved.
And if you want to claim that God rules our intentions, then you want to claim that we are beings that have no choice in what we do and what we do not do.
If that is the case, then sure, God created evil, but if that’s the case, we’re not people anyway. We’re just stupid robots.
Esthier on April 24, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Is that true? Have at least 10 billion people died? I’ve never heard a number before, and I’m honestly curious. Is this just a guess or something based on some information you’ve got?
Esthier on April 24, 2007 at 11:26 PM
It appears I’ve gotten to the debate too late. But thankfully I missed the same old arguments.
Religious people (Christians here) know that God exists and that Jesus rose from the dead. How do they know this? The Bible tells them. How do they know The Bible is true? They don’t, they just hope (or believe) that it is true. People point out how this in no way validates the existence of the Christian God or Jesus and the religious people state that it doesn’t matter because so long as they think what they read is true it is true – to them.
Really. It’s kind of pathetic that this is the only way this argument can end up. Religious people, who on most all other topics would turn to reason and logic to prove a point, blatantly ignore it when the topic turns to faith. If I said “complete and total subjugation of women is right,” wouldn’t the people here want proof of that statement? If I told you that God personally told me this would that be proof enough for you? If this thread is any example I’ve got a feeling the answer is yes.
Nonfactor on April 24, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Why? God is God. If He needed good deeds He’d simply do them Himself. Why should He care about someone who feeds the homeless?
When He came to earth He didn’t do a single sinful thing. It seems that if you can’t beat that, then you’re in, but otherwise, how can you set up a rule for who’s “good” enough?
And is that really how you’d want to decide your afterlife? Personally, I’d rather spend an eternity with someone I love, not someone I was “good” for. I don’t get this idea. The way I see it, either you want to be with God or you don’t.
Seriously, if you don’t believe in God, why do you think He’d be someone you want to rule you in Heaven? If you don’t want Him to rule you here, why do you think it would be nice to be in Heaven? He’s tangible there.
For those who don’t believe in Heaven, I get that a little more, though I can’t comprehend it. As I said before, I can’t comprehend nonexistence either, but it’s something I try to ignore, forever or not forever.
Esthier on April 24, 2007 at 11:36 PM
More than 4 hours later, and still NO DENIAL BY ALLAH.
“The dog that didn’t bark ….”
Ali-Bubba on April 24, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Give me a break! Just because you don’t believe it, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t more to our faith than that. Believe it or don’t, but do you really have to be so disrespectful? Is it necessary?
Esthier on April 24, 2007 at 11:39 PM
First off. You wrongly assume I am an Atheist. I am not opposed to concept of ID. I was a devout Christian until I read the bible. There are simply to many immoral vile filthy behaviors to deem that god worthy of my worship. The kind of behavior that is written down is what comes out of the minds of men. That God kills families for the sins of one. Kills children, little ones, elderly. Implies that after killing the “little ones” they may keep the virgins for themselves. Eze 9:5-6, Num 31:17 I simply cannot stomach that.
As to the answer to your questions above Who made God? What is the chance that God came into being anymore than dust. God is something and something/anything ultimately has to nothing. Maybe one day we will know, maybe we won’t but I simply cannot worship/love someone that not only allows but commits vile acts. Children are innocent. Even Jesus said so and yet God kills them or even worse orders believers to kill children. I can never account for that evil. Its evil now it was evil then.
The other problem is I am intended to believe the Bible full of mostly anonymous authors that claim they saw something written after the fact. Translated by men hundreds of years later. NO original texts. Words added to the books. Some books included some not.. all decided on by men. Were those men inspired? The bible is chalk full of contradictions. Starting with there being light separating the darkness before there was a sun. If there was light to separate darkness than what was the need of the sun as the plants were growing quite well without it.
I could go on and on but whats the point. These questions should be asked and explored by each individual but rarely do believers feel the need to look at opposing views or find out why unbelievers feel the way they do.
For those who wonder who Robert Ingersoll was. Do a google he has wrote some very provacative articles 200 years ago.
Formation of the canon
Beginners guide to questions.
frreal on April 24, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Thank you! That is the only conceivable outcome of the entire theological debate, and the one thing that theists, agnostics, and atheists would all spare themselves considerable grief by simply agreeing upon.
Instead, we waste vast energy on weirdly misplaced appeals to the empirical world (on the theistic side), bizarre and futile hypotheticals (on the atheistic side), and worthless recriminations (on both sides). It all boils down to a feeling, or the lack thereof. There’s no argument to be had about that.
Blacklake on April 24, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Not quite. He said He wanted us to come to Him as children do, as creatures open to everything, believing nothing is impossible, but He never said children are innocent.
Esthier on April 24, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Why do we try? Because not to try ignores one of Christ’s central commands. Because if we can’t discuss it, parse it, then it doesn’t really hold up. Because we have brains and like to use them.
Anwyn on April 24, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Maybe, maybe not, but this is the “party of ideas” and as such we should not be afraid of a discussion, especially one amongst friends. Though I think that is what makes this so hard. It’s easy to feel insulted when a friend admits a belief that Jesus was nothing more than a man and that God is nothing but an imaginary friend.
It may sting, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
Esthier on April 24, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Nonfactor on April 24, 2007 at 11:28 PM
mikeyboss on April 24, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Not quite. He said He wanted us to come to Him as children do, as creatures open to everything, believing nothing is impossible, but He never said children are innocent.
Esthier on April 24, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Time to read your bible Esthier —Isaiah 7:16—For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good……….
Farell Till presents much better than I do.
frreal on April 24, 2007 at 11:57 PM
It’s unbelievable to learn how people are suffering for things that go out of control that we take care of easily and early in the US.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Between the two extremes of wealth and poverty what precentage of the worlds population lives in abject poverty and not the U.S. standards of porerty? How do you think the average U.S. citizen would cope mentally faced with this poverty?
sonnyspats1 on April 25, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Unfortunately for you Enrique the social science almost uniformly suggests it’s just as good for adults.
But, hey, if a shorter, lonlier, childless life with less satisfying sex floats your boat…rave on!
John on April 25, 2007 at 12:01 AM
You said Jesus, not Isaiah. One was a prophet, one was the son of God…
Jews had an age of accountability. Christians seem to be still sorting that one out.
I personally tend to take a more subjective view. If you understand what you’re doing, then you have the ability to understand you are sinning. But again, there is no official Christian stance.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 12:04 AM
And really, does it serve your purpose to condescend to me? Do you truly assume I’ve never read the Bible? I know many who call themselves a Christian who haven’t, but I’m not one of them. Though even if I was, it does you no good to treat me that way. I can think of no religion or atheist who believes it’s right to be that way.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Jesus is God Esthier. God is Jesus. If God said it in the Old Testament it is the same as if Jesus said it. Trinity anyone?
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 12:09 AM
God didn’t say it. Isaiah said it.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Esthier,
If I tell my children not to do something, I give them a reason why they shouldn’t and that there will be consequences if they disobey. Either their disobedience will result in a bad thing as a direct result (running with scissors and stabbing their eye out) or I will mete an appropriate punishment upon discovery that they ran with scissors and managed not to stab their eye out.
I missed the part where God said “if this, then this is the direct result”. “Because I said so” is rarely a good response in my household, yet it arises on occasion out of frustration. You’d think that God would give an explanation as to why one shouldn’t eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
It’s pretty important, you know, that whole “fall of man” thing that God didn’t see coming when he made two people with absolutely no knowledge of right and wrong.
Snarky aside begins:
I’m supposed to believe that there is a being with no beginning and no end with powers beyond my comprehension, but magical fruit are outside of his realm of expertise.
Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 12:11 AM
If you go to verse 13 you’ll see it. “Isaiah said…”
Isaiah wasn’t saying that God had affirmed an age of accountability but was rather speaking to an audience who already understood what that age was, the same as if I had said “before he was even old enough to ride a bike without training wheels…”
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Isaiah was inspired. If not inspired than it doesn’t belong in the Word of God.
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 12:14 AM
regardless it implies there is an age of innocence. There is an age when children for slaughtered so the Israelites could take their parents land. Good morals.
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 12:17 AM
You’re supposed to believe whatever the hell you want to believe, whatever seems true to you. And you’re wrong, the snarky part is what you started with.
I don’t care what you or anyone else believes. I’m only saying what I believe.
I don’t believe that a tree house all the sin, like Pandora’s Box.
I believe that sin is nothing more than a disobedience of God.
And I believe that Adam and Eve disobeyed God FIRST AND FOREMOST when they ate from that tree. Whether or not it had powers seems moot to me in comparison to the FACT that they disobeyed God in order to eat it.
And last………………..
God told them what would happen if they disobeyed Him. He said they’d gain the knowledge of good and evil. Well, they already knew what good was, so obviously in doing evil, they learned what evil was, or else why would they bother to stop from walking around naked?
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 12:17 AM
No, it only proves that the Jews believed in an age of innocence, which I already knew.
Just because they believed it, doesn’t make it true.
And just to be clear, I’m not saying an age of innocence doesn’t exist either, just that one religion’s belief in it doesn’t make it true or implied for any other religion.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Though really, with all the complaining on here about how “God sends people to hell” bs, I would think killing innocent kids and thus giving them a free ride to Heaven would be a good thing in your eyes.
On the one hand, many seem bothered that God allowed evil into the world and thus gave people a chance to chose a path other than Heaven, and on the other hand, you seem annoyed by God’s “morals” (as judged by you, someone who I assume must be completely moral) in that He DIDN’T give a few children the choice to reject Him.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 12:22 AM
How does being naked imply evil? God didn’t think it was evil before the sin he MADE them that way. He thought it was good. What compelled them to think it was evil after? That is morality derived from the minds of men.
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 12:22 AM
But you see Esthier they didn’t just snap their fingers and send them to heaven. They slit their throats, burned them, starved them, drowned them. They made them suffer. That is wicked.
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 12:24 AM
The God of the Old Testament is the same God as Jesus. Its not some other religion. It is the same God. I don’t understand how you can pick and choose and say well that was only for the Jews. If the OT is not true then Genesis is not true thus negating the need for a savior as there would be no original sin.
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Do you even realize how ugly this sounds? Would you like God to give your children a free ride that way?
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Yes, right. No one has endured more. No victim of the Nazis, no victim of Stalin, no victim of the countless degenerate despots who ruled the world in ages past when cruelty was considered entertainment. No one even among the many, many, many other people crucified by the Romans endured anything so terrible as Jesus. The same Jesus who, once again, was assured all the comforts of heaven once his ordeal was over, as opposed to every last other victim I just named.
I can’t prove for a fact that Jesus didn’t suffer more than anyone in history and you can’t prove that he did. But given that I’ve got 10 billion or so people to choose from on my side and you’ve got only one on yours, which of us is more likely to be right? See what I mean about logic?
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Jesus bore the guilt,shame and condemnation of every person ever to be born. Was cast in hell for a brief time directly after his death. Thats all that he suffered also with the knowledge he would sit at the right hand of God. I am sure you have experienced one or all of those emotions. Imagine taking on the guilt of everyone who ever lived. Thats serious pain and also serious love cause he did it for us.
sonnyspats1 on April 25, 2007 at 12:37 AM
mikeyboss on April 24, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Is that an attempt a 13th steppin? ha ha
sonnyspats1 on April 25, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Too bad you were Widely Ignored, sparkle.
Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Which version of Christianity do we know?
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 12:49 AM
This has been the best HA thread on religion/atheism, so far. It was a fabulous HA birthday gift, especially because AP chose to comment so much. Thank you to all who participated. Welcome to the new commenters.
I’d like to give special thanks (sincere, not snarky) to naliaka, anwyn, Tanya, AP, of course, mikeyboss, Enrique, Nonfactor, Professor Blather, SouthernDem, and a few others, who whether religious, or not, argued courageously for their beliefs, without trying to influence the others. I found this thread fascinating, and mostly that’s not the case with those on same topic.
All I know is that I don’t know. However, on this subject I’m very uncomfortable getting into a debate, as most end up being futile.
I respect people who believe, and I respect people who don’t. I don’t believe their morals, lives, values are less valuable/good, either way. My father was agnost and my mother very religious. Both parents did not influence the children. One of us became very religious and one of us didn’t. We were taught, however, to grant all others the same right and freedom of belief.
What would Limerick say? And fogw? Kini?
Kralizec, I missed you the most on this thread.
Happy birthday HA – this was great!
Entelechy on April 25, 2007 at 1:37 AM
Of course not. I hope it didn’t seem that I was suggesting it to be wrong to defend God. I was only saying I felt that God does not “need” us to defend him. He’s more interested in us spreading his teachings. After all, Jesus did not ask to be defended from Crucifixion. Haven’t we seen this sort of attack before? The mocking? The laughter? It will all work out again.
Gregor on April 25, 2007 at 2:02 AM
OK, this is the only valid argument for god that I have heard so far.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 25, 2007 at 2:38 AM
But the problem is that you simply can’t know that. I can argue with you all day with some pretty compelling evidence, such as …
It would seem clear that evil must have existed prior to God’s instructions for there to be a “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Your statement that “evil entered the world through sin” may in fact be correct, but how does something that does not exist … “enter the world?” Something must first exist, before it can ‘grow on a tree’ or … “enter.” At least, I would THINK.
Of course, there are many who would come right back and throw out a different verse, or tell me that this particular translation is inaccurate, yada yada yada. We just have no way to “know” until we die and God tells us so himself.
Also, keep in mind that we are only able to interpret the Bible’s words based on our mind’s ability to comprehend the universe. Does anyone believe that we have even the most basic understanding of the nature of the universe? If we are unable to comprehend what’s at the end of space, how can we possibly understand God, and whether or not He created evil. All we have is simple text, left for us 2000 years ago by humans who had even less understanding of reality than we do now. And we’re somehow supposed to ‘figure it all out’ by reading this book? I doubt it.
Absolutely. When someone “misquotes” the Bible … it needs to be pointed out. But interpretation is an entirely different thing. “Deductions” are debatable and subject to interpretation. While it’s great to debate or discuss varying interpretations or opinions, I “don’t believe” it’s wise to assume that we’ve come up with the correct answer. I’d rather just hope I’ve done a good job of figuring out as much as I can and know that I’ll eventually find out in the end.
And even with my comment here … maybe I’m just totally 100% ignorant. I guess it’s always possible that there are people who have completely figured it all out. But I highly doubt it.
Gregor on April 25, 2007 at 3:20 AM
Thanks for the links. Fascinating reading. I got bored with this thread, so I went down this rabbit trail (for a few hours) which you graciously provided for us.
Although Merle Hertzler feels “free” (now that he has abandoned the Christian faith), I think that even he would admit that he now has more questions than he has answers. Since he no longer believes in absolutes, I predict that relativism will run amok. He’ll be lucky if he doesn’t end up like Aleister Crowley.
BTW, I STILL adhere to the Christian faith, even after spending a considerable amount of time perusing the material on Hertzler’s website. Call me stubborn, if you like.
CyberCipher on April 25, 2007 at 4:15 AM
Damn. The smiley face gave me away.
mikeyboss on April 25, 2007 at 7:30 AM
I found the Canon info far more compelling. Like I implied Merle’s site is more for beginners who have never even considered there are questions to be asked. Interesting you should say he would end up an occultist. All I see is a man who desires more proof than he is given and finds the proof of the bible to be insufficient.
God created the world and the universe, the laws of physics, emotions, birth, death, heaven and hell. He has infinite powers. He can communicate with me any way he chooses, appear before me, whisper in my ear, translate/provide his word so that there is no doubt in any language or culture that it was written by God. When all the books came together our Words of God would be the same as the Chinese and the Indians and the Egyptians and all the other ancient cultures that developed different sacred texts.
Instead His omnipotent, omniscient method of information dissemination is to tell other people to tell me that God told them to tell me that he exists and I am supposed to love him or I am going to Hell. He chose the one way that would lead me to question.
Coincidence?
God heals all kinds of diseases and affirmities in the Bible. Evidence of this by believers throughout the ages. Even claims of resurrections. The one thing God never did was regrow an amputated arm or leg. Not one historical account of even a toe growing back. The one way that I would not question the other healings is the one healing God won’t do.
Coincidence?
God sacrificed his son so the whole world would know and love him. And yet he waited until man developed boats, and explored the Earth to bring his word to the other continents. Rather than Columbus arriving on the shores of North America and the Indians greeting him with open arms saying Oh you know him too? God chose the one way that man would have/ could have chosen to share faith.
Coincidence?
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 8:04 AM
Being naked isn’t being evil, but once they knew what evil was, everything about them changed. Putting on clothes is just one example of what changed, because then sex became something carnal and not pure, just as everything from then on out became carnal.
They immediately saw each other in a different light and were ashamed.
Is there a pleasant way to kill someone that you would have prefered warring countries to use? People tend to not want to die and very rarely make it easy on themselves to die.
But then I guess it would have been better if God had taken simply taken the little children into Heaven by way of a firey chariot like He did with Elijah? Only then, at what point would the cut-off age be? 12? So all kids who are 12 have to quickly learn how to pick up a sword or be killed. Is that fair?
Well, maybe it would be better if God just took every country that warred with Israel straight into Heaven in order to spare them any painful deaths, but then would that be fair to countries that didn’t fight with Israel or to Israel itself?
Why not just take everyone to Heaven and skip the whole dying part? Oh, but wait, clearly Satan wasn’t interested in staying in a place with God as Lord, so maybe not everyone would chose to go to Heaven if they had the choice.
Look, I already said I don’t necessarily agree with any age of accountability issues. So I don’t necessarily buy the idea that the kids went to Heaven after being killed. However, under that assumption, which is what I was going on, killing someone, no matter how painful the killing is, and sending them to Heaven still comes out positive.
Our life here is short and often unpleasant. Theoretically, Heaven is the exact opposite, never unpleasant and eternal.
If there really is this magic age where kids all of a sudden have to decide and can be sent to hell, killing them before that age would save them from something eternally unpleasant.
But again, I don’t buy the age of accountability thing and don’t condone the acts of any warring country in our history. I just try not to judge people who lived thousands of years before I did, especially when they basically fit the mold of the day. Since nearly every nation killed babies and fought in violent wars, it’s possible that I’m the one with the messed up perspective on life back then. So I’m leaving that one alone.
You may believe I’m dense, but I’m not. You wrote this exact thing earlier, and I replied to it earlier. Repeating yourself will not make you point any clearer no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
I’ll try to spell it out for you. God is God, Jesus is God, and He never changes, hence the “I AM” name He gave Himself.
I never said the Old Testiment is wrong, but that doesn’t mean all of it applies.
The Old Testiment was the first chapter, and it was a chapter of people who were ruled by laws. In the second chapter, the New Testiment, Jesus came and fullfilled the laws, thus negating the necessity of living by those laws.
Jesus spoke on issues of the heart rather than outward deeds. He spoke against the religious leaders and embraced prostitutes because the ones who “appeared” to be following God and living a holy life were actually “white-washed tombs.” He didn’t want someone who was painted over with white on the outside while being filthy and hollow on the inside.
So Christians don’t follow near as many traditions and instead worry more about what’s inside us than if we happen to sin.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 9:32 AM
Your argument is text book.
But really, is regrowing an aputated arm more difficult than raising the dead, raising Himself from the dead, giving sight to a blind man or curing leprosy in 10 individuals?
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Man would have sent itself down in the form of a child, born into poverty, with nothing but a 3-mission to save mankind before dying in the most painful way yet invented by man?
Now this is just me, but if I were God, I’d come down in a blaze of glory, in a perfect body (not a baby’s), shining so brightly that I’d leave a mark on the mountains themselves and speak to everyone simultaneously, leaving them with no doubt that I am God. And if I were God, I wouldn’t let humans even so much as slap me, let alone tear off my flesh with a whip, mock me with a crown of thorns and a cape that once ripped off would make new scabs bleed again, until finally being nailed to a cross and being subjected to further insults.
But maybe that’s just me. Maybe other humans would chose the painful route.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Ahh no Esthier but they killed in the name of God. They weren’t promised land that was empty and ready to be developed. They took land from others that had been developed and cultivated and proved to be prime real estate. God said I want you to have this land. Now go out and kill em all. I got your back. And they did if in fact you believe what was written.
It is never outright stated what the Amelikites, Midianites, Hittites, etc… did that was so evil to earn the slaughter of all but the virgins. It certainly wasn’t written that they initiated any sort of attack on the Israelites. The only thing I can deduct from what is written is that they simply occupied land that was coveted by the Israelites.
Is it too much to ask that God let me know what evil is worthy of me going to slaughter children or having my own slaughtered so that I can take great pains not to commit such an offense? Perhaps there could have been a better way for an omnipotent, omniscient being to show the world his infinite mercy than the massacre of children. I don’t know I am not God but I can surely imagine.
At any rate as this thread falls into archive oblivion Esthier it’s been an enjoyable discussion as usual. I apologize if you felt persecuted earlier I imagine if you weren’t up for the debate you wouldn’t have continued to write. Since we most likely agree on most everything except religion I say please take care until we meet in the next religion thread.
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Ok one last comment then I am done. Apparently it is too much to ask since it hasn’t been done. It is a cliche argument precisely because it is true. Diseases are healed all the time and a far far greater percentage of them healed by developments in medicine than miraculous recoveries. People have been pronounced dead and returned throughout history. Were those mistakes or real resurrections?
Too grow a limb would be phenomenal, would defy all the science that we currently know. Would provide irrefutable proof. I went to bed without a hand and I woke up with a new one after I prayed. Surely throughout the ages millions of amputees have diligently prayed for the return of their limb only to receive a blind eye. Surely just as many as cancer victims prayed and were cured without medical intervention. Why?
Funny how the incidences of miracles occurring is in direct correlation with the advancement of technology. I can’t remember ever having read a resurrection story.
Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.”
–Author Unknown
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 10:21 AM
I couldn’t agree more Esthier.
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Fair enough. I’m getting a thicker skin and gaining more insight on my own faith. It’s overall a good thing. Criticism like this is harder to take from people I normally agree with, but that’s something I should work on.
I get into this type of argument regularly. As a Christian, how can I support war or any offensive action? I just start with the given (assuming this is a geometry proof) that God is Just, and with that, I also start with the given that I do not understand God, because if I could understand Him and explain Him, He wouldn’t be God, He’d be some predictable being which I could learn to use for my purpose.
The thing I like about God is that I can’t imagine much about Him. He’s not who I would be as God, and He’s not who I would have picked if I were to make up a God, but I know Him just as well as I knew my own father when I was a child. I’d like to know Him at some point the way I now know my father as an adult.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 10:25 AM
To an unsophisticated 22AD human, there are a number of conditions that could be confused for death, for example a deep coma. When that person woke up, a miaculous “resurection” occurred.
Of course, it is hard to confuse any other condition for a missing limb.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 25, 2007 at 10:27 AM
For several days, so much so that they stunk up a whole room from decomposition?
And what about walking on water in the ocean?
The truth is, had the above things not been done, but the regrowing an arm thing had been done, the argument would just reverse. The argument would then be, “well He never raised anyone from the dead…”
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 10:30 AM
I’m sure even our science would equate body decomposition with death. But aside from that, were they mistaken with the blindness and leprosy? Those are very visible things.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 10:32 AM
And then my next question, is where, outside of the bible, can I find evidence that these things actually happened.
And, of course, you have no other documented source.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 25, 2007 at 10:38 AM
There are some external sources for some of these things, but yeah, if we’re arguing outside of the Bible, the entire discussion will become moot very quickly.
But my point was never to prove God exists and that Jesus is God. My only point was to start off from that point and move forward with the arguments that were presented before me.
I don’t believe it’s possible to convince someone that God exists. As far as I’m concerned, that’s God’s job.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 10:41 AM
About miracles.
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Again, we weren’t arguing about whether or not these accounts are true but only going off of the assumption that they are true.
If they’re not true, then maybe the real stories deal with amputees.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Also please note the disclaimer at the top of that article. The fact that someone said it doesn’t make it true. The fact that anonymous people said makes it just the more difficult.
frreal on April 25, 2007 at 10:53 AM
And this is where the discussion always ends, because there are no credible sources that prove Christian Mythology exists.
And I do not believe that the bible presents proof that god exists any more than the book Jurassic Park proves the existence of dinosaurs on an island near South America.
I do understand the desire to have a god, just like I understand a child’s desire for Santa Claus. But desire does not equal truth.
In my opinion, religion will always be around, because it takes above average intelligence and a lot of research to even begin to understand how things really are.
It is so much easier and convenient to believe that your invisible friend created the universe as your playground because he loves you.
Also, there is status to be gained in society by convincing the rest of the dirty masses that you are an agent of this god. I could live quite well if my neightbors gave me 10% of their income each week.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 25, 2007 at 10:59 AM
I was never trying to do that. Did you miss the part where I said that and followed it by saying it’s God’s job, not mine?
I’m going to ignore the rest though, because it is unnecessarily rude. If you feel the need to write insulting things, do so, and I won’t judge you, but I see no benefit in digifying them with a response.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 11:03 AM
So, if my opinion differs from you, then I am rude?
I merely stated what I believe.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 25, 2007 at 11:13 AM
You’re rude in the way you present your opinion, showing no respect for people who have a different one. You leave no room for the thought that religious people might possibly be more than scared children whose crutch is an invisible friend.
It’s condesending and yes, rude.
Not all differing opinions are rude, but some are. If my opinion is that redheads are ugly, then that is a rude opinion, not because it differs from someone’s opinion that redheads are pretty but just because it’s rude in and of itself.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Nice. Really endearing sentiment there.
Slublog on April 25, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Yes, JayHaw Phrenzie is saying that all religious people have a below average intelligence and then wonders when I call this opinion rude.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 11:26 AM
This study is flawed from the premise to begin with. They simply overlooked the positive outcomes of heavy parental interaction with their kids and the negative influence of arguing in front of their kids in general. In such cases, religion is irrelevant.
Gene Splicer on April 25, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »