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.

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

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?

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

If not public school, college is pretty good at that.

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

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.

As you know, I was specifically referring to your statement:

naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 4:31 PM

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?

That’s rough all right. So, why did God not do what you would do, and instead permitted people to do that?

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:

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

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.

Surprised you didn’t recognize those quotes then. Maybe you just looked at the pictures?

naliaka on April 25, 2007 at 4:31 PM

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.

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 you know, I was specifically referring to your statement:

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.
Esthier on April 25, 2007 at 1:00 PM

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

.
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.)

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

Surprised you didn’t recognize those quotes then. Maybe you just looked at the pictures?

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.

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

Why do I think that should be added to the page disclaimer? LOL.

JayHaw Phrenzie on April 25, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Hit me back later then.

JayHaw, where did you go?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Rose on April 25, 2007 at 1:50 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.

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 researchers compared these scores to how frequently the children’s parents said they attended worship services, talked about religion with their child and argued abut religion in the home.

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 2:01 PM

Thanks. I will have to look it up.

Um, after work of course.

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?

Slublog on April 25, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Which of the podcasts is yours? There are three listed on the menu of your site.

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

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

It would be easier if we have profile pictures.

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

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.