breaking atheism to relatives [Archive]

arcticpenguin

9th September 2003, 09:46 AM

I was raised Catholic, then became atheist at abour 20 years of age. I knew I could not discuss it with my mother without causing her grief, so I simply never told her about it. She died when I was ~ 28.

If they don't want to hear your reasoning, you could try inverting the situation: insist on hearing their reasoning, but frame the conversation to fit your own perspective. E.g. no talking about what God really wants or God is really like since they cannot support the existence of god with any credible evidence. You could simply ask, "do you really believe that sh__?"

Or you could talk about wild wacky religious beliefs held by people other than them (muslims, Raelians, etc). Most people are OK with that. Maybe you can connect the dots and point out the crazy things that are part of their own religion after that, maybe you could just let it go for a while, and wait until you've built a good base.

The mind virus knows what is good for it, it does not want reasoning brought into the conversation.

hgc

9th September 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
...

Or you could talk about wild wacky religious beliefs held by people other than them (muslims, Raelians, etc). Most people are OK with that. Maybe you can connect the dots and point out the crazy things that are part of their own religion after that, ...

... And if that works, Gulliamo, then let's take whatever you did and put in the drinking water. Then maybe we can cure this mass delusion. Good Luck!

Ipecac

9th September 2003, 10:26 AM

My mom also said that I "need to talk to a minister."

I asked her if there was anything anyone could say to her to convince her that Santa Claus was real. She said no. I said this is the same thing.

She didn't like the analogy but I think it's right on.

Ruby

9th September 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Gulliamo
I am having a hard time breaking my atheism to my family. They do not want to hear my reasoning. Rather they say, "I think you need to go talk to a priest." Or they do not want to talk about it at all. My wife said, "I thought we agreed to raise our children as Catholics." To which I replied, "That is because we thought that was the best way to live. Now I simply know better." I then gave her several examples of other previous child rearing misconceptions that we had early on but were willing to change upon learning the truth.

Any advice would be appreciated. Any one else have this problem? How did you deal with it?

:confused:

I wish I could help. My hubby and I are facing a similar situation. We are working on breaking it to his mother and other family members that we are no longer "Christians" and are pretty much agnostics on our way to being atheists. My hubby was raised in a very strict religious-cult community. Things eased up a bit once his entire family got out of it, but his family are still very much fundamentalists. His mom loves to quote scripture all the time.....and it drives my hubby nuts.

We are planning to go visit his mom in December. She lives in NH. My hubby is in the process of composing a letter to explain to her how we feel.....where we are at in life....and that we are no longer bible believing Christians. We want that all out of the way before we go visit.

She is going to be shocked. I can't even imagine what she will say. :eek:

ShottleBop

9th September 2003, 10:46 AM

"Blasphemy" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008J2JH/qid%3D1063129883/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-1108159-7826245)

Not a great movie, but it tells the story of a man who tries to tell his (Catholic, Hispanic) family that he is an atheist. It plays like the scriptwriter coming to terms with the issues him/herself.

bozothedeathmachine

9th September 2003, 11:21 AM

When I was 19 I told my folks in church, no less (we were only there for a wedding). They were completely cool about it. My dad was raised in a very Catholic household and he even defended me against others blaming me for heresy. We never argued (debated) or anything...but I think he knows he would lose pretty much any objective argument against me.

He says now that he thinks he was brainwashed as a kid with all of the Catholic dogma. Whether his new revalation is what made him so cool with my lapse or my lapse fueled his doesn't matter.

I've had "dicussions" with my grandmother about my lapse and while she's not down with it, she knows there is nothing she can say. She goes for the guilt trip, "With everything God has done for you...". Oddly enough she claims h(H)e did so much when I had cancer, yet she's silent when I ask why g(G)od gave me cancer in the 1st place...that whole infuriating double-standard thing.

I don't envy you, that's for sure.

hgc

9th September 2003, 11:30 AM

When I was 15, I told my rabbi, in so many words (I don't think I used the word "atheist," but he got the point). He was very upset, and said he was going to call me that night to talk about it, but he didn't call.

I never bothered to tell my parents, because we never discussed religion anyway.

Gulliamo

9th September 2003, 11:36 AM

Bozo- welcome to the forum

Everyone else - thanks for the advice.

9th September 2003, 11:39 AM

Well, I'm a direct sort of person, so yes, I told my mom (my dad was dead by then, but I think he had hints already, and frankly, sometimes I have a feeling he had some, err, questions, myself). She was a bit upset for a while and would "pray for me". A few incidents like this, and then she volunteered that maybe it was because I was "mad at god" because some of the people in the church I grew up with were raging hypocrites (well, she got half of it right, at least, but it's hard to be mad at something that doesn't exist), and finally just gave up on it.

We supported her church until she died, it was her social structure, and although it consisted of mostly older people in a community with no jobs to speak of, it was important to her as social structure. She helped a lot of other people, and the last two or so years of her life, a lot of people helped her. (We lived about 450 miles away.)

So, the social structure is something I wish I knew how to replace, but with something that people do for that purpose, not for the reason of conducting a magic spell every Sunday morning... (sigh)

But back to the original thread, my mom eventually coped, although she would prod and push occasionally.

My parent seems to have been on the mild end of the spectrum.

Silicon

9th September 2003, 11:42 AM

My mom just broached the subject that she'd like me to have my new baby daughter baptized.

My reply "No, that's not gonna happen." ended the conversation right there.

Any further, and you have hard feelings. Opening it up to discussion will only bring misery.

Say what you have to say, and end discussion there.

Say "Those are my beliefs, I'm ending the discussion." I think it's the best way to go.

T'ai Chi

9th September 2003, 12:00 PM

I told my relatives and friends that I am not saying there isn't god(s, esses), etc., just that I haven't seen any convincing evidence for them, and that I feel that science can explain things in the world just fine.

Gulliamo

9th September 2003, 12:12 PM

Silicon - I think that is the best approach to use with my relatives.

But that is a hard line to take with a spouse. Should I just hope that she'll eventually come around? Should I try rational debate? Should I let it slide for a while and ease her into the idea?

Bluegill

9th September 2003, 12:20 PM

What, you can't go with the old "I don't discuss politics or religion in polite company" routine? Your family isn't polite company? ;)

It seems to me that once my parents got past the point that they were trying to raise my brothers and me to be responsible Catholics (by which I mean, once they recognized that we were old enough to think things like religion and politics through on our own, and form adult-esque opinions), they themselves sort or slackened a bit. They used to make us go to church each week, but I don't even know if they themselves go anymore.

My whole family has always been live-and-let-live, anyway.

Bluegill

9th September 2003, 12:39 PM

Hexxenhammer

9th September 2003, 12:51 PM

My family knows I'm an atheist. No one has a problem with it. I get dirty looks from my mom if I go off on a tangent about the religious right or something but that's it. She doesn't go to church anymore for local church politics reasons.

My wife is having a harder time. She doesn't want to be Catholic anymore and doesn't know how to break it to her family. Both sides of her family are very Catholic. If we weren't having a kid soon it wouldn't be a problem, she would just not go to church. But she wants to our daughter to learn about religion, just one that shares her beliefs and not Catholicism. Her dad especially won't understand.

gethane

9th September 2003, 01:06 PM

I was raised Methodist and managed to find my own views (agnostic, but in no way atheist. I think atheism takes just as much "faith" as religion. How can you prove there is no god?) just fine once I reached my upper teens/college years. My children (12, 10, and 9) currently go to Bible school, because they enjoy it. Well, they did up to this year, then they said they didn't want to anymore. My children believe in God, and sometimes have asked me hard questions, and I answer them truthfully.

If you want your children to truly HAVE a choice, I think they have to have some religious background as a child. My children are free to choose what they believe, and I'm always happy to discuss their questions with them.

Raising them atheist (brainwashing them atheist) in my view is just as bad as raising them fundamentalist-play-with-snakes. Raising them to ask questions, in my opinon, is a better option.

As to the original poster: why do you need to discuss it or "announce" it to family at all? This is just something I think my family has no business in, and I've made it clear. I don't discuss my decision to co-sleep or breastfeed (infants! infants! I'm pregnant again. Not my older children :)) on demand with anyone either. I don't need anyone's approval to do what I feel is right.

Sometimes being an only child is such a blessing. My parents know that I'm there only shot for old-age care, so they take great pains to not disown me :).

As to your wife: I assume you love her and want her to be happy? Will raising the children her religion make her happy? As long as it isn't one of them "whacked out you can't have medical care" religions, I guess I don't see the problem. You child can have BOTH views and as they get older, can learn to question and make his/her OWN decisions. Just like so many of us managed to, even though we were raised in a religion.

By the way, I don't mean to offend with my views on atheism. Perhaps I've perceived what atheist means incorrectly. But for me, saying there is no god, is like saying prove there's no water out there on that planet the Hubble discovered that's several light years away. Go ahead! Prove it!

Gulliamo

9th September 2003, 01:26 PM

gethane-

When I say, "There is no God." I am referring to the Catholic omnipotent, omnipresent, omni benevolent, all knowing God who interacts with his followers through water stains on mountain sides. Not the remote possibility that there is a God who is there but just doesn't do anything and is therefore undetectable.

I do not feel a particular need to "announce" it. But I will be returning home soon after several years away and I sure it will come up. Maybe I should simply attend mass with them to limit the controversy.

I think that is very good spousal advice!

sorgoth

9th September 2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by gethane
I was raised Methodist and managed to find my own views (agnostic, but in no way atheist. I think atheism takes just as much "faith" as religion. How can you prove there is no god?)

It's pointless trying to prove a negative. Try it. Prove that there isn't an invisible dragon following me around.

Bluegill

9th September 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by gethane

By the way, I don't mean to offend with my views on atheism. Perhaps I've perceived what atheist means incorrectly. But for me, saying there is no god, is like saying prove there's no water out there on that planet the Hubble discovered that's several light years away. Go ahead! Prove it!

I think that most posters here recognize the difference between saying "I believe that God does not exist," and saying "I have no evidence for the existence of God, so I do not hold a belief in God."

I also think most atheists on this forum fall into the latter category. That form of atheism is not a form of faith, but rather, a lack of it. I don't think you offend anyone with your views on atheism. The matter has been discussed here before--there is a lot of misunderstanding, and in many ways it's simply a matter of semantics.

gethane

9th September 2003, 01:37 PM

Thanks for clarifying those points for me. I wish you the best with your family. I guess if you don't feel it would be "betraying" yourself, I'd go to church. After all, it doesn't hurt anything :). God or no god. If you feel too strongly to do that, which is fine too, imo, then you will have to have some sort of confrontation. Perhaps just a "I'm going through a crisis (or whatever word, if crisis is too strong) in what I believe right now, and I don't feel like I can go to church with you right now." would be enough.

My husband, also mostly agnostic, nevertheless, went to parochial elementary school. Now that I'm pregnant (his 1st, my 4th) he wants our child to go to that school, not because of the religious education, but because it is widely perceived to be the best school in our small town. I don't really care one way or the other, he does care, so ... he wins :).

Good luck with your dilemma. I guess I started as I meant to go on. My first husband was black, and I am not. I fought that fight at age 20, and just never really looked back for approval or anything else from them. I love them, they love me, and for us, that's enough. (Although I did continue going to family reunions, which I hate, until age 29, when I finally rebelled).

HarryKeogh

9th September 2003, 01:45 PM

all my friends know.

aside from some close cousins none of my relatives do. if i told one it would get around to my mom who would no doubt have a nervous breakdown.

i guess i'll have to let the cat out of the bag when i eventually get married.

Hexxenhammer

9th September 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
i guess i'll have to let the cat out of the bag when i eventually get married.
I didn't. My wife and I had a Catholic wedding and I don't think the preist was very pleased he had to marry a Protestant to a Catholic. I had to pretend to be religous to make sure we could have the wedding her family wanted. You also have to agree to raise your kids (and you better get busy with having some pronto, every sperm is sacred you know) Catholic. We also lied about living together. We were, we said we weren't. That would have been a deal breaker too. What a crazy@$$ religion.

hgc

9th September 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

I didn't. My wife and I had a Catholic wedding and I don't think the preist was very pleased he had to marry a Protestant to a Catholic. I had to pretend to be religous to make sure we could have the wedding her family wanted. You also have to agree to raise your kids (and you better get busy with having some pronto, every sperm is sacred you know) Catholic. We also lied about living together. We were, we said we weren't. That would have been a deal breaker too. What a crazy@$$ religion. Question about that: Do you think the Catholic church knows that they are forcing a large number of people to lie to the priest and to lie during the marraige ceremony just to pass the basic threshold requirements of being married in the church?

Silicon

9th September 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Gulliamo
Silicon - I think that is the best approach to use with my relatives.

But that is a hard line to take with a spouse. Should I just hope that she'll eventually come around? Should I try rational debate? Should I let it slide for a while and ease her into the idea?

Hmm... I woudn't debate it. When I met my wife, there were a number of issues that we felt differently about, but were obviously so personal that we didn't debate them. It would have gotten quite ugly. She had various levels of belief in occult phenomena like astrology.

She KNOWS how I feel about those subjects. And I know how she feels. But to argue them then, or to argue them with someone you love when the issues are new to you, that just seems ripe for punishment. For me, it would have been absolutely wrong, and for the wrong reasons. I would have won the argument and lost my girlfriend. I would have done it believing I was doing the right thing, being intellectually honest, and stating my beliefs without shrinking from them.

But the deeper thing I would have missed is to learn a lesson in humility. She HAS her beliefs. They don't need to stand up to MY scrutiny. They need to stand up to HERS.

As years have gone by, neither of us has abandoned our old views, as much as we have re-assessed them under the light provided by the other. She now considers Astrology mostly a fraud, with disasterous implications within our extended family when a "bad reading" caused a rift between a father and his daughter because of her choice in a new husband. (Folks here won't be surprised to learn that the husband turned out to be a truely brave, good-hearted, devoted, loving, noble and supportive husband these past 10 years. The rift continues to this day, the woo-woos continue to predict disaster.)

Note that I never went on a tirade against astrology. I just shrugged and called it useless. Over the years, I think her scrutiny of her beliefs has gotten much more strict. And I have learned to respect her tremendously.

One of the things that I think helps us is that neither of our worldviews predicts dire consequences for non-believers. I'm not busy trying to save her soul, nor she mine.

But for you, I'd give it time. Let her know what your belief is, but take it very gently. If you must explain yourself, use personal terms. Don't disprove her religion. Just talk about yourself. Say "I think... this" "I feel...that".

Good luck.

Hexxenhammer

9th September 2003, 02:25 PM

Yahweh

9th September 2003, 02:31 PM

Send a post card of yourself wearing fangs with blood dripping off them, urinating on a crucifix, with a beheaded Virgin Mary in your left hand, pentagram in your right...

If that doesnt get the point across, add an "I'm an atheist" speech bubble off to the side...

Yahweh

9th September 2003, 02:32 PM

Anything with shock value is fine by me...

Yahzi

9th September 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by gethane
If you want your children to truly HAVE a choice, I think they have to have some religious background as a child.
That's true about racism, too. If you don't raise your kids with at least some racist background, they'll almost certainly reject racism as an adult. How is that a true choice?

:rolleyes:

triadboy

9th September 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Gulliamo
How did you deal with it?

Let them "accidently" catch you slaying a goat in your room. That worked for me. :)

Brown

9th September 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by hgc
Question about that: Do you think the Catholic church knows that they are forcing a large number of people to lie to the priest and to lie during the marriage ceremony just to pass the basic threshold requirements of being married in the church? Oh, hell yes, the Catholic church knows. And the Catholic church isn't alone. A lot of Protestant churches also know that people lie to them to get a church wedding.

There are some churches that won't allow you to get married on their premises unless you attend their pre-marital counseling course. I've heard from quite a few people who have attended such courses, and they are unanimous in saying: "These courses are a complete waste of everyone's time."

So yeah, the churches know that they are being lied to left and right. They know that people are telling them what they want to hear.

rachaella

9th September 2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
No. I think that they have a completely un-realistic view of the world. Maybe small towns are worse than cities though. There must be SOME down to earth priests somewhere. Just not in North Dakota.

Where I live a couple years ago it was quite the news that a catholic church in the area was marrying gays and ordaining women (well having them ordained in another church, Episcopalian I think and then recognizing that and letting them do the duties reserved for men). They ended up breaking off from the Catholic Church. My World History teacher belonged to this church.

Gulliamo

9th September 2003, 07:10 PM

9th September 2003, 07:57 PM

UnrepentantSinner

9th September 2003, 08:17 PM

I just don't discuss it with people unless there's a need to do so (or I'm on the Net of course). Just today I went into a non-Randi, non-religion room with my UnrepetantSinnerAtheist PalTalk login. Apart from the fact that Britons and Scots appear to love to pronounce the entire name, I just mentioned a few things in passing and started shooting the breeze about other stuff.

That's what I do in real life as well. If someone asks what church I go to, I tell them work nights and like to sleep in the morning. If they persist, I tell them I don't go to church. Whenever my mom mentions praying about something, I just tell her that's nice. She never asks me when I'm going to start going to chruch again, I never suggest to her that she should stop.

Hexxenhammer

9th September 2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Brown
There are some churches that won't allow you to get married on their premises unless you attend their pre-marital counseling course. I've heard from quite a few people who have attended such courses, and they are unanimous in saying: "These courses are a complete waste of everyone's time."
Oh yeah. Had to take a test and everything (scantron!). The priest was disappointed when mine came back very negative in the religion department (I guess I wasn't lying on the test well enough). Then we had to do a weekend retreat. We talked with the other couples in our group while our "minders" were away and every one of them were living together and lying to the priest about it. The lessons were archaic. "Don't use birth control" and the whole nine yards. One girl was very adamant and wanted someone to explain why the pill was bad. Of course the presenter couldn't. Complete waste of time indeed.

Rayn

9th September 2003, 10:15 PM

Well. I've had an odd experience in trying to break my agnosticism to my family. I was raised Presbyterian (yet another Protestant sect) and had gone to church, requisite parent's orders, for the majority of my youth. Once I went to college I just stopped going to church.

However, my mother still wishes for me to go to church, and it is extremely important that I have faith in Christ, etc. to her (I'm not sure, but it seems that she may feel that she has failed as a mother if I do not believe). She also wants to become a missionary to North Korea when she retires, and is an amazing person in every way. Personally, in order to break it to her that I no longer believed, I really just asked her to read more on the subject, outside of the Bible. I pointed her to the Gnostic Gospels and historical texts, and I hope that this helps her out, though I wonder if I am doing her a disservice in trying to break her faith (I'm not sure how many JREF members will be sympathetic to that notion, but I think faith is extremely important for everyone). Anyways, my main way of breaking it to my family was by not attending church. Basically a method of non-Christian disobediance ;)

bozothedeathmachine

10th September 2003, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

My wife and I had a Catholic wedding and I don't think the preist was very pleased he had to marry a Protestant to a Catholic. I had to pretend to be religous...

That sucks. My wife is from a former communist country where religion wasn't outlawed but was heavily frowned upon by big brother. As a result she grew up with absolutely no religion (unlike many of us who did then lapsed). Religion is a non-issue for us, as it will be for our children. If the kids want to go the religious route they can, but I'll be sure they have the ability to ask the right questions.

Brown

10th September 2003, 08:48 AM

Consider the following strategy.

When someone asks, "Do you believe in God?" answer "Well, I don't believe in organized religion, if that's what you're asking me."

In other words, try to frame the question in terms of whether you have faith in people. Do I have faith that the Catholic church really knows what God is like? No, I don't. Do I have faith that the Baptists really know what they're talking about? No. Do I have faith that the Muslims really know what God wants? No. Do I have faith that the Mormons really know how to make the Almighty happy? No. And so on.

In many cases, the true purpose of the "Do you believe in God?" question is really to determine whether you buy into an organized religion. Many people equate the two, but they are really separate questions. As Thomas Paine argued in "The Age of Reason," one can have a sincere belief in God while holding that all religions are human inventions that do not lead to a true understanding of the divine.

Hexxenhammer

10th September 2003, 08:55 AM

Exactly Brown. I often tell people I have no problem with personal religion, I have a problem with organized religion.

elliotfc

10th September 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Gulliamo
I am having a hard time breaking my atheism to my family. They do not want to hear my reasoning. Rather they say, "I think you need to go talk to a priest." Or they do not want to talk about it at all. My wife said, "I thought we agreed to raise our children as Catholics." To which I replied, "That is because we thought that was the best way to live. Now I simply know better." I then gave her several examples of other previous child rearing misconceptions that we had early on but were willing to change upon learning the truth.

Any advice would be appreciated. Any one else have this problem? How did you deal with it?

:confused:

I've heard of a similar situation, it ended badly (divorce). If you made a commitment to your wife, I suggest to stick with it. I would say the same thing to an atheist who became a Christian. If two atheists, before marraige, agree to raise their kids as atheists, but then after marriage one becomes a Christian and changes his/her mind, I would recommend (even though I am a Christian) that they stick to their original agreement.

Now, if you are able to persuade your wife to become an atheist and she changes her mind, that's another thing. Then you're straight. You made the good point *we were willing to change upon learning the truth*. But your wife looks at it differently from you obviously, and she did not accompany you in what is a highly personal realization.

All the best, and respect your wife. Surely you can understand what she is going through, and as a rational person you might have to place more of a premium on her will than your own.
-Elliot

elliotfc

10th September 2003, 09:36 AM

elliotfc

10th September 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Gulliamo
When I say, "There is no God." I am referring to the Catholic omnipotent, omnipresent, omni benevolent, all knowing God who interacts with his followers through water stains on mountain sides. Not the remote possibility that there is a God who is there but just doesn't do anything and is therefore undetectable.

True. Most Catholics I know believe that God interacts with us through waterstains on mountains.

I do not feel a particular need to "announce" it. But I will be returning home soon after several years away and I sure it will come up. Maybe I should simply attend mass with them to limit the controversy.

This is what my older brother does. He'd much rather stifle his pride than hurt his mother.

-Elliot

elliotfc

10th September 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by hgc
Question about that: Do you think the Catholic church knows that they are forcing a large number of people to lie to the priest and to lie during the marraige ceremony just to pass the basic threshold requirements of being married in the church?

Nobody is ever forced to lie. If you choose to lie that is your business. I hate when people go on about how a situation compels them to lie. Take responsibility for what you say.

If you have such little respect for the institution that you would lie to it, that should give you something to think about.

Alternatively maybe lying is no big deal. From a utilitarian standpoint, in this situation lying could be just peachy. Who is getting hurt? If the liars are fine with it, and nobody is none-the-wiser, and if there is not a God who cares whether or not people lie, it's really not a big deal.

-Elliot

elliotfc

10th September 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Gulliamo

No. The church has become very proficient at believing lies. They are no longer able to discern the truth.

Were they ever able to discern the truth? Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

-Elliot

elliotfc

10th September 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

Oh yeah. Had to take a test and everything (scantron!). The priest was disappointed when mine came back very negative in the religion department (I guess I wasn't lying on the test well enough). Then we had to do a weekend retreat. We talked with the other couples in our group while our "minders" were away and every one of them were living together and lying to the priest about it. The lessons were archaic. "Don't use birth control" and the whole nine yards. One girl was very adamant and wanted someone to explain why the pill was bad. Of course the presenter couldn't. Complete waste of time indeed.

It isn't the pill that is necessarily bad, but the intention behind the use.

-Elliot

elliotfc

10th September 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Exactly Brown. I often tell people I have no problem with personal religion, I have a problem with organized religion.

I say the same thing, but I replace science with religion. Ba duh bum TISH.

(I'd add an often in the last part of the sentence)

-Elliot

elliotfc

10th September 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Exactly Brown. I often tell people I have no problem with personal religion, I have a problem with organized religion.

I'm taking a grad-level comparative religion class right not, taught by an agnostic. Anyhow this came up in the textbook, the question about whether there is such a thing as a personal religion. By some definitions religion is inherently communal, and all things communal are organized. So organized religion is redundant, and personal religion is an artificial term.

Of course you all probably have different definitions of religion.

-Elliot

Andonyx

10th September 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

It isn't the pill that is necessarily bad, but the intention behind the use.

-Elliot

Could you expand further on this?

Also in regards to your comparitive religion class:

Many religions follow an unspoken but important distinction, early catholocism being one of them that the nature of the individual is not just simply non-religious, but profane. Individuals desires are by nature those base instincts which we must fight in order to become closer to the divine, and only through a communal persuance of the divine in each person can someone escape their own profane nature. It's a strong dichotomy that in one sense could provide for a desire to help the community but in a darker sense could also be a tool of control and manipulation not unlike corrupt communism.

Oddly, Judaism is somewhat unique in this regard in that many of its techings praise the individual pusuit of spiritual and academic knowledge. Part of the teachings discuss how Judaism was able to survive millennia of persecution because one does not need to go to a synagogue, or pray with others, or form a congrgation to be a good Jew, one simply needs to meditate on the meanings and messages of the Torah to keep the sabbath, and this can be done anywhere one can find the time and light to read by.

Silicon

10th September 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Anyhow this came up in the textbook, the question about whether there is such a thing as a personal religion. By some definitions religion is inherently communal, and all things communal are organized. So organized religion is redundant, and personal religion is an artificial term.

I don't think you've supported your claim very well there. But we can discuss that.:)

Why do you think that the word "religion" only describes the communal activity of organized worship? What word would be used for a singular person's beliefs?

For example, Jesus, before He had any followers. Stipulating the biblical story of Jesus is true, He had a different "religion" than any of the Jews around him at the time.

What do you call Jesus's personal beliefs between the moment that He became aware of them, to the moment that He first spoke of them? Were they not religious?

If there is a different word, don't you think the problem is just semantics? Like a meteor is a meteor before it hits the ground, and after it hits it's called a meteorite?

Or is there a point beyond your semantics? Such a point being the bible's quote "two or more gathered in His name". Is this supposed to be a logical proof of that concept?

Now from a cultural perspective, such as a comparitive religions course, one can only study that which is communicated to the world. Private beliefs are not submitted for study.

But I would remind people that most people DO communicate their private beliefs, even if they do not get them from a book or a preacher. And when communicated, the ideas interact with other people in society and get accepted, criticized or rejected by other people. So in that way, there isn't a bright clear line distinguishing private beliefs from shared beliefs. How that doesn't qualify as "religion" in the eyes of Elliotfc's class, I don't know.

As far as Brown's original point, I think that's a main, strong argument to make. And one that Elliotfc has completely sidestepped (as usual) for a semantic argument on the meaning of the word "religion".

That point bears repeating. Believing in an organized religion means having faith that the preacher knows the mind of God.

I may have faith in God, but I do not have faith in preachers to know His will.

Yahzi

10th September 2003, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
By some definitions religion is inherently communal, and all things communal are organized.
By some definitions a banana is a rocket ship. Those definitions are generally labled "idiotic."

The entire point of religion is personal. In particular, the Christian religion is about your personal relationship to God. Not your communal relationship, your personal relationship. If you want to have a merely communal relationship to the God of Abraham, you should be a Jew.

Andonyx

10th September 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

By some definitions a banana is a rocket ship. Those definitions are generally labled "idiotic."

The entire point of religion is personal. In particular, the Christian religion is about your personal relationship to God. Not your communal relationship, your personal relationship. If you want to have a merely communal relationship to the God of Abraham, you should be a Jew.

No...

Fraid not there big guy.

Speaking as one, and pretty well versed in Judaism...Judaism is the least communal centric form of western worship. Compare early catholocism to Judaism and it's no contest. Why don't you check out my post above.

Hexxenhammer

10th September 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Nobody is ever forced to lie. If you choose to lie that is your business. I hate when people go on about how a situation compels them to lie. Take responsibility for what you say.
No, I wasn't forced to lie, but I loved my fiance, and wanted to make her happy. And what made her happy was to make her family happy by having a big Catholic wedding. We had 2 options. Lie and get married. Or tell the truth and never speak to her family again. Looking back, maybe we should have told the truth.
Anyway, the problem was that the Catholic Church had problems with ME. I decided to put my problems with the church aside and deal with them on their terms.
Originally posted by elliotfc
If you have such little respect for the institution that you would lie to it, that should give you something to think about. Yeah, not my institution. My inlaws.
Originally posted by elliotfc
Alternatively maybe lying is no big deal. From a utilitarian standpoint, in this situation lying could be just peachy. Who is getting hurt? If the liars are fine with it, and nobody is none-the-wiser, and if there is not a God who cares whether or not people lie, it's really not a big deal.
-Elliot Exactly.

Hexxenhammer

10th September 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

It isn't the pill that is necessarily bad, but the intention behind the use.

-Elliot
This was AFTER you're married. Not before. They didn't want even married people using it. They were already under the stupid assumption that we were all virgins in our mid and late 20's.

Hexxenhammer

10th September 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

I'm taking a grad-level comparative religion class right not, taught by an agnostic. Anyhow this came up in the textbook, the question about whether there is such a thing as a personal religion. By some definitions religion is inherently communal, and all things communal are organized. So organized religion is redundant, and personal religion is an artificial term.

Of course you all probably have different definitions of religion.

-Elliot What I meant is that I have no problem on a personal level with a person believing what they believe. Where the trouble begins is when they get together in a group and start trying to get creationism taught in schools for example.

Gulliamo

10th September 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Were they ever able to discern the truth? Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

-Elliot

Hmmm. Probably not.

homunculus

11th September 2003, 08:51 AM

I am having a hard time breaking my atheism to my family. They do not want to hear my reasoning. Rather they say, "I think you need to go talk to a priest." Or they do not want to talk about it at all. My wife said, "I thought we agreed to raise our children as Catholics." To which I replied, "That is because we thought that was the best way to live. Now I simply know better." I then gave her several examples of other previous child rearing misconceptions that we had early on but were willing to change upon learning the truth.

Well, congratulations on "seeing the light" (or lack thereof).

Can't offer you any advice here. In our family, when my mother decided to become a "born again" Christian, it was her having to "break it" to the rest of us gnarly old skeptics, and re-assure us all that she wasn't loosing her marbles...

Paul.

arcticpenguin

11th September 2003, 09:01 AM

Send your family a postcard with a picture of Hell on it. On the back write: Having a great time, wish you were here.

Candace

11th September 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

By some definitions a banana is a rocket ship. Those definitions are generally labled "idiotic."

May I please oh please use this in my signature, attributed to you of course? It is probably the funniest deep thing I have read in quite a bit!

arcticpenguin

11th September 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Candace

May I please oh please use this in my signature, attributed to you of course? It is probably the funniest deep thing I have read in quite a bit!
Go ahead. Probably Yahzi would be flattered, but my position is: if it is posted on the forum, it's fair game for signature material. You should attribute the quote properly; you'll see numerous examples in other people's sig lines.

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx
Could you expand further on this?

This is in regards to the pill not being bad, but the intention behind the use of the pill being bad.

By using the word "bad" clearly I'm talking about morals, and I'm coming from the Christian/Catholic perspective. The idea is that excluding fertility from sex goes against the idea of complete and total sharing of self in sex. Sex is about giving and receiving, and denying the possibility of conception is to strike down the creative possibility in sex. Remaining open to God means remaining open to life; we are to be fruitful and multiply and to choose life.

If you want a really expanded discussion, I yield to Janet Smith:
http://www.petersnet.net/browse/4420.htm

Many religions follow an unspoken but important distinction, early catholocism being one of them that the nature of the individual is not just simply non-religious, but profane.

We are created in the image of God. Our nature is fallen but if we were truly profane then the incarnation could not have possibily happened.

Individuals desires are by nature those base instincts which we must fight in order to become closer to the divine, and only through a communal persuance of the divine in each person can someone escape their own profane nature.

This is more of a Buddhist philosophy actually. Our desires can be for the beautiful and the true, and those are not base instincts. Our desire can be liberating, and it can also be destructive. The key is to stifle the profane desires and encourage the desires that lead us to God.

It's a strong dichotomy that in one sense could provide for a desire to help the community but in a darker sense could also be a tool of control and manipulation not unlike corrupt communism.

Of course all good things can be used for evil purpose. Man desires to be connected with fellow man. There is nothing wrong with that, but that fact can certainly be used for wicked means.

Oddly, Judaism is somewhat unique in this regard in that many of its techings praise the individual pusuit of spiritual and academic knowledge.

Very true. But surely Catholicism isn't very far removed from that (just look at the history of the Jesuits). Other Christian denominations are less accepting of the idea obviously.

Part of the teachings discuss how Judaism was able to survive millennia of persecution because one does not need to go to a synagogue, or pray with others, or form a congrgation to be a good Jew, one simply needs to meditate on the meanings and messages of the Torah to keep the sabbath, and this can be done anywhere one can find the time and light to read by.

And Christianity was able to survive persecution while being a communal faith. You may be cutting Judaism short. If it were as communal a faith as Christianity, I still think it would have survived and be in existence.

Anyhow Judaism is very communal. It may have had phases of forced secrecy and individualistic worship, but by nature it is a communal religion.

-Elliot

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Silicon
Why do you think that the word "religion" only describes the communal activity of organized worship? What word would be used for a singular person's beliefs?

Because religion means *to bind again*. Religion is inherently connective, not disconnective. If you are talking about spiritual activity done in isolation, those persons are simply following the lead of religions which emphasize such pursuits. Thus personal religion is just going about religion in a way that many religions espouse as the way to reconnect with God. The rituals involved in individualistic worship are, in fact, sanctioned by organized religions.

For example, Jesus, before He had any followers. Stipulating the biblical story of Jesus is true, He had a different "religion" than any of the Jews around him at the time.

He was a Jew with unique ideas. He was well versed in the Jewish scripture and attended temple service. It wasn't until he began communicating with others that a religion came into being, even if in a nascent stage.

What do you call Jesus's personal beliefs between the moment that He became aware of them, to the moment that He first spoke of them? Were they not religious?

Sure they were religious. He was a Jew with unique ideas. The ideas made him stand out, and people took notice, and then you had the beginnings of a cult of a religion, a fringe group that would eventually be condemned by the religion and would set up on its own.

If there is a different word, don't you think the problem is just semantics? Like a meteor is a meteor before it hits the ground, and after it hits it's called a meteorite?

The problem is always semantics, isn't it?

Personal religion just doesn't mean anything to me, because certain organized religions are all about personal religion.

Or is there a point beyond your semantics? Such a point being the bible's quote "two or more gathered in His name". Is this supposed to be a logical proof of that concept?

I think the point of that Biblical quote is that God expects us to go for communal religions. The other religions that are isolated go against the whole idea of religion as a way of connecting.

Now from a cultural perspective, such as a comparitive religions course, one can only study that which is communicated to the world. Private beliefs are not submitted for study.

If a tree falls in a forest...

That's just it. And once a private belief is articulated and shared, it is no longer a private belief, but something that can be judged and compared.

Of course there are many religious rituals, and some religious rituals are not communal. There are Christian and Hindu hermits all over the place.

But I would remind people that most people DO communicate their private beliefs, even if they do not get them from a book or a preacher.

Right. That brings up the question of what beliefs are, in fact, private (ideas can be gotten from conversation, books, etc.).

in that way, there isn't a bright clear line distinguishing private beliefs from shared beliefs. How that doesn't qualify as "religion" in the eyes of Elliotfc's class, I don't know.

OK, I didn't quite explain very well the idea. You're right, there is no line, that's the whole point. There is no line that can be drawn between private beliefs and shared beliefs. Once a belief is out in circulation, it's a shared belief. A personal religion is just a way to make a distinction that isn't really there.

As far as Brown's original point, I think that's a main, strong argument to make. And one that Elliotfc has completely sidestepped (as usual) for a semantic argument on the meaning of the word "religion".

That point bears repeating. Believing in an organized religion means having faith that the preacher knows the mind of God.

Not necessarily. Some organized religions don't have preachers, and some people in organized religions don't take their preachers seriously. Yet they still have beliefs and still gather in communities to participate in rituals.

I may have faith in God, but I do not have faith in preachers to know His will.

That works.

-Elliot

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
By some definitions a banana is a rocket ship. Those definitions are generally labled "idiotic."

???

By what definitions? Yours? That's a new one to me.

The entire point of religion is personal.

Well, I guess the entire point of everything is personal at some level. If you carefully study any of a thousand religions, you'd understand that the point of religion is for people to hold certain beliefs in common and to participate in communal rituals.

In particular, the Christian religion is about your personal relationship to God.

Well that's one way of thinking about it. Yet all Christians believe in the Bible to some extent, and the Bible was written by persons not named Jesus, so obviously being Christian is more than just a personal relationship to God.

Not your communal relationship, your personal relationship. If you want to have a merely communal relationship to the God of Abraham, you should be a Jew.

???

As a Catholic I am compelled to participate in the sacramental life of the Church. The sacraments are a part of the communal life of the Church, and involve more than just me and God.

-Elliot

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx
Speaking as one, and pretty well versed in Judaism...Judaism is the least communal centric form of western worship. Compare early catholocism to Judaism and it's no contest. Why don't you check out my post above. [/B]

Judaism is intensely ethnic and family based, and anyone familiar with Jewish ritual knows how communal those rituals are.

-Elliot

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
No, I wasn't forced to lie, but I loved my fiance, and wanted to make her happy. And what made her happy was to make her family happy by having a big Catholic wedding. We had 2 options. Lie and get married. Or tell the truth and never speak to her family again. Looking back, maybe we should have told the truth.

:)

You could have told the truth and sought reconciliation/conversion with the Church, and went through the process of annulments et al.

Many times families threaten the *never speak again* deal and that does not come to pass. And many times the threat does, in fact, happen. Of course in the Gospel Jesus says that his message will divide families, so there you go.

Anyway, the problem was that the Catholic Church had problems with ME.

Sure. If you decide that you are above the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage, then they would have a problem with you.

I decided to put my problems with the church aside and deal with them on their terms.

They took you charitably, of course. Since you approached the sacrament dishonestly, the sacrament is invalid, but since you never believed the sacrament was valid in the first place, that probably doesn't matter to you.

-Elliot

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
This was AFTER you're married. Not before. They didn't want even married people using it. They were already under the stupid assumption that we were all virgins in our mid and late 20's.

No, they don't want anyone using the contraceptive pill (well, females that is). There is no evidence that they assumed that all people were virgins until mid-late 20's, why do you think that?

-Elliot

Dub

11th September 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

I've heard of a similar situation, it ended badly (divorce). If you made a commitment to your wife, I suggest to stick with it. I would say the same thing to an atheist who became a Christian. If two atheists, before marraige, agree to raise their kids as atheists, but then after marriage one becomes a Christian and changes his/her mind, I would recommend (even though I am a Christian) that they stick to their original agreement.

So, if they decieded to call their first child 'David' but it was a girl they should stick to it? :D

Anyhow, its better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle without debating it.

The simplist solution, it would seem, would be to raise the child as an agnostic, whilst teaching skeptical understanding and rational thought. Then, when the child is old enough to think rationally for itself, say 16, they can decide themselves. Every child should be brought up agnostic imo. Teaching a child a religion before they can talk doesnt give the child a chance to think for itself. A child will believe just about anything their parent tell them. If people are so confident that their religion is 'right', the child should have no problems working it out when they are old enough to think rationally for themselves.

triadboy

11th September 2003, 08:28 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elliotfc
If two atheists, before marraige, agree to raise their kids as atheists, but then after marriage one becomes a Christian and changes his/her mind, I would recommend (even though I am a Christian) that they stick to their original agreement.

I like to equate 'atheist' with 'freethinker'. I'm an atheist married to an atheist and we didn't decide anything specific about raising our children. We let our children use their own minds and decide for themselves; unlike an xian family where it's church every Sunday and say a prayer before you eat that twinkie.

My youngest daughter went to Sunday church with a friend of hers - when she came home, we asked her about it. She said, "Weird".

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Dub
The simplist solution, it would seem, would be to raise the child as an agnostic, whilst teaching skeptical understanding and rational thought. Then, when the child is old enough to think rationally for itself, say 16, they can decide themselves.

Grrr. The whole point of Christianity is that if you are a Christian, you are required to raise your child in the faith. So, if you are a Christian who will not raise your child in the faith, you've already ably demonstrated to your child that the faith is less important to you than the modern idea that it is good to have an open-minded child. Of course all this time the child will be indoctrinated in school and from TV and through secularism in general, while the parent will withhold Christianity out of supposed care for the child's intellectual independence. If Christianity is about love, you give your children what you love. If they reject that love, that is their choice.

Every child should be brought up agnostic imo. Teaching a child a religion before they can talk doesnt give the child a chance to think for itself.

You teach a child to eat and to wipe itself. If Christianity is the most important thing, you teach the most important thing. See, the kicker is that you have to believe that it is the most important thing. If you don't believe that (like you), obviously you'll possibly or probably feel as you do. Surely you can understand that to a serious Christian, yours is a moot point. There are a thousand things you teach a child to do before it has a chance to think for itself. And anyhow a child doesn't really think for itself, it absorbs the influences around it.

A child will believe just about anything their parent tell them.

Yes, and that is why it is important that a parent love his/her child. As children grow older obviously they have the option of discarding what they were told by their parents, be it Santa Claus or Jesus.

If people are so confident that their religion is 'right', the child should have no problems working it out when they are old enough to think rationally for themselves.

But that is not how Christianity works. Christianity is a religion of evangelization and transmission from one person to another. If you can raise your child secularly, you can also raise your child religiously. This is a fundamental right of humans, the right to raise their children as they see fit. If you choose to raise your child as an agnostic I would not force you or compel you to do otherwise. If you try to reason with a Christian to raise their children as you would raise them yourself, surely you can understand that they think you're missing the point.

But I see where you are coming from, since you don't believe as I do about the truth of Christianity.

-Elliot

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
I like to equate 'atheist' with 'freethinker'. I'm an atheist married to an atheist and we didn't decide anything specific about raising our children. We let our children use their own minds and decide for themselves; unlike an xian family where it's church every Sunday and say a prayer before you eat that twinkie.

Well obviously they decided to be like their parents. Alternatively they could have been influenced as a 7 year old by the next door family who all went to church together every Sunday morning.

My youngest daughter went to Sunday church with a friend of hers - when she came home, we asked her about it. She said, "Weird".

What would be truly weird is if she had a different response.

Two religious raise a child religious, and the child would think atheism is weird. Two atheists raise a child atheist, and the child would think religion is weird.

-Elliot

triadboy

11th September 2003, 08:52 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elliotfc

Two religious raise a child religious, and the child would think atheism is weird. Two atheists raise a child atheist, and the child would think religion is weird.

But there is the point! - We didn't raise them atheist - we just didn't include 'invisible creatures' in their upbringing. Do you see what I mean? We didn't announce "There is no God". We didn't announce anything.

I felt like a terrible heel keeping up the Santa lie - and told her the truth as soon as she insinuated it to be false. I'm glad I didn't have to even start the "Jesus lie".

Dub

12th September 2003, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Grrr. The whole point of Christianity is that if you are a Christian, you are required to raise your child in the faith.

Of course you have to. That what allows the mind virus to spread so easily. Its simple - dont give the child a chance to come to its own conclusion.

So, if you are a Christian who will not raise your child in the faith, you've already ably demonstrated to your child that the faith is less important to you than the modern idea that it is good to have an open-minded child.

So you think rational thinking is a "modern Idea". Your faith may be important to you but dont impose that on your child, who has no chance to decide for itself whether Christainity is important to them.

Of course all this time the child will be indoctrinated in school and from TV and through secularism in general, while the parent will withhold Christianity out of supposed care for the child's intellectual independence.

Last time I looked the TV was not overwhelming me with secularism. Most schools hardly encourage it either. Remeber though, the child will have had Christianty forced on it before it even goes to school.

If Christianity is about love, you give your children what you love. If they reject that love, that is their choice.

They never have the chane to reject it because its rammed down their necks before they can even speak!

You teach a child to eat and to wipe itself. If Christianity is the most important thing, you teach the most important thing. See, the kicker is that you have to believe that it is the most important thing. If you don't believe that (like you), obviously you'll possibly or probably feel as you do. Surely you can understand that to a serious Christian, yours is a moot point. There are a thousand things you teach a child to do before it has a chance to think for itself. And anyhow a child doesn't really think for itself, it absorbs the influences around it.

So you'd rather your child be a mindless robot and do and think only what it is told?

Why are Christians so insecure about letting their children think for themselves? Rational thinking is the greatest thing a person can do.

As children grow older obviously they have the option of discarding what they were told by their parents, be it Santa Claus or Jesus.

Infafct they dont have much of an option. People have already mentioned here how hard it is to 'break' atheisim to religious parents. The pressure to be Chrisitian can be overhwhelming. Not only is the child taught and constantly re-inforced that Christianity is correct, they will also get reinforment from other people - in the community etc, even from Dubya himself! With some much pressure to conform and contant reinforcement its extremely difficult for someone to take the mental leap required and think for themselves.

But that is not how Christianity works. Christianity is a religion of evangelization and transmission from one person to another. If you can raise your child secularly, you can also raise your child religiously.

Of course thats how it works. Thats the only way it can work.

This is a fundamental right of humans, the right to raise their children as they see fit. If you choose to raise your child as an agnostic I would not force you or compel you to do otherwise.

I never said it wasnt a fundamental right of parents. However, I think it was be responsible for parent to raise their children agnostically. Would you think it responsible to raise a child to believe that the world is really run by giant lizards??

Raising a child to believe in a specific religion before it can think for itself is denying the child free thought.

If you try to reason with a Christian to raise their children as you would raise them yourself, surely you can understand that they think you're missing the point.

Reason with a Christian? That's an oxymoron! :D

Hexxenhammer

12th September 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
:)

You could have told the truth and sought reconciliation/conversion with the Church, and went through the process of annulments et al.

snippity snip

They took you charitably, of course. Since you approached the sacrament dishonestly, the sacrament is invalid, but since you never believed the sacrament was valid in the first place, that probably doesn't matter to you.
-Elliot

Why would I convert? That would even be more dishonest than just claiming to be a wishy-washy Presbyterian. Nothing the church said could have suddenly made me "see the light".

They didn't take me charitably. They marry Protestants and Catholics and make them promise to have Catholic kids. It's extortion to get more members (and little boys).

The only sacrament that matters is the one between my wife and I. If she had wanted a witch doctor to shake his magic ju-ju rattle, I would have done that too. The Priest's job should be to just do his ju-ju and keep out of it otherwise.
Since you approached the sacrament dishonestly, the sacrament is invalid So in god's eyes I'm not married to my wife? Oh, well. I think I'll keep her. She makes good fried chicken.

Professor Frink

12th September 2003, 07:38 AM

You might ask your family what their church means to them. Some replies have indicated that families like the social structure/support of religious groups as much as the "God" part. My parents, when lightly pressuring me to have our first son baptized, let me know that their main feelings about the church had to do with the fact that "churches are usually filled with really nice people." I think that many people, when left with their own beliefs in God, resurrection, etc. WITHOUT the social structure might begin to question their own beliefs.

I explained our unwillingness to have our sons baptized by saying that we have discussed it and have decided that it's not something we're going to do right away. We have no problems with my parents (say) reading them a bible story or showing them Veggie Tales or something. I think that education about religious beliefs is okay.

At least with my parents, I have found that gently acknowledging their beliefs and respecting them (whether or not I agree with them) just makes it easier for us.

Frink

roger

12th September 2003, 07:43 AM

I have some trouble relating to some of the responses to this thread, as pretty much as soon as I decided that I didn't believe I announced it to my family (around 9th grade or so). I admit that I was never threatened w/ excommunion w/ my family because of it, but i sure had to listen to 'lectures'.

I do recognize the desire not to hurt other's feelings; some religous people genuinely feel that you are going to suffer eternally if you don't believe. Yet, I find it impossible to accept that another person has more right to decide what I should think than me! In fact, I bristle at any attempt to "just pretend" - freedom of thought is probably our most important rights. To me it is worth defending, even at the cost of causing pain in others.

To be fair, I have been accused of lacking empathy :)

But I wonder where the empathy is in the other party who is judging and/or condemning me for not believing in something w/ no evidence?

Andonyx

12th September 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Judaism is intensely ethnic and family based, and anyone familiar with Jewish ritual knows how communal those rituals are.

-Elliot

Okay falsity...

I'm willing to bet I know a whole heck of a lot more about Jewish "ritual" than you do there pal.

Yes, it is intensely family based....

As opposed to COMMUNITY based like much of Christianity.

Now which of those two do you call more communal.

Do xtians pray and worship ins small family groups or in large village sized services?

Maybe your definition of communal is different or my understanding of xtianity is off, but I'll tell now that my understanding of Judaism is spot on.

Communal to me sounds like mass, or services or big you know, church things involving the community. Judaism involves worshipping in small family groups. I cannot understand how you can possibly think this is more communal.

Or are you talking specifically about the spiritual nature of the religion?

You earlier mentioned one's "individual relationship with God."

If you're saying that Judaism stresses the way one interacts with the rest of the community as opposed to one's demonstrations of worship to god alone...okay that I can buy. But the structure of the rituals itself is far more individually based in Judaism.

Yahzi

12th September 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

The whole point of Christianity is that if you are a Christian, you are required to raise your child in the faith.
And here we have the true nature of Christianity revealed.

It is a cultural phenomona, a meme if you will, whose only function is to propogate itself.

The revolutionary aspect of Christianity - the idea that God spoke to individuals, dealt with individuals, that each individual had a personal relationship with God that transcended family and social obligations, that the individual would survive death, that the actions of the individual mattered - are finally suppressed. After only 2,000 years the Catholic priests have managed to utterly undo the damage done by that radical Jesus and his crazy preaching.

Some people - crazy people, of course - might have thought that the whole point of Christianity was to know God. But not Elliot and his Catholic Masters.

As for your vile position on birth control:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3095198.stm

The children are sold to the fishermen by their parents who cannot afford to feed or school them.

No doubt your response is, they shouldn't have sex if they can't afford kids. Yes, because that's what we want to tell these desperately poor black people: sex is only for rich white folks.

Yahzi

12th September 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Andonyx

Maybe your definition of communal is different
I think of Judeaism as a more communal religion than Christianity. In fact, the emphasis on family ritual only supports that view. No Jew would ever say:

Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

However, clearly Judeaism has a conception of the role of the individual in religion. The concept of individual responsibility was not a total graft by the Christians, but rather a branching point of development. I think one of the things that distinguishes Christianity from Judeaism is that focus on the personal. Of course, since one is descended from the other, they share many traits. And our fundies are desperately trying to transform Christianity from a personal religion into a cultural force - the church fathers have been since day one. This whole personal thing is just uncontrollable - look at how many Protestant churches there are!

All the truly communal religions are basically dead now. I'm thinking of the Romans, the Greeks, etc. Anyhow my point is this: Judeaism is more communal than Christianity. The Jewish Messiah is going to come for all the Jews: the Christian Messiah is just going to call his own home, even if it means leaving behind their wives and husbands.

Edit: another idea - part of the reason the Christians developed big church services is because they couldn't have small family ones - often members of the same family weren't all Chrisitian. Paradoxically, I think the big services of the Christian church are actually evidence of more personal, and less communal, doctrines. In the family service you are your family, but in the church service you are just you.

Andonyx

12th September 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

All the truly communal religions are basically dead now. I'm thinking of the Romans, the Greeks, etc. Anyhow my point is this: Judeaism is more communal than Christianity. The Jewish Messiah is going to come for all the Jews: the Christian Messiah is just going to call his own home, even if it means leaving behind their wives and husbands.

Edit: another idea - part of the reason the Christians developed big church services is because they couldn't have small family ones - often members of the same family weren't all Chrisitian. Paradoxically, I think the big services of the Christian church are actually evidence of more personal, and less communal, doctrines. In the family service you are your family, but in the church service you are just you.

Well then that's my mis apprehension of your claim.

I'm looking at the structure of the religion and it's framework. To me Judaism emphasizes the strength Jews have in community, again partly because of the generations of persecution.

But the reltionship with god is strictly personal. Honestly, it's hard to separate many of the communal aspects from the personal ones, but when worship is done it is usually a reflection on the individual and what he or she can do to be better, for example Yom Kippur.

That and the much smaller emphasis on attending synagogue makes me see Judaism as far less communal.

In addition. In Judaism there is no need for a priest or a rabbi or a congregation to live an entirely good life. Rabbis' can be friends, mentors, teachers, counselors, but they are not necessary for worship, thay do not have to perform any sacrements. Likewise a rabbi does not need a congergation to be a Rabbi, he could merely be a very devout religious scholar.

That to me places the emphasis on the individual, not the community.

Now as for the actual doctrine. you make some good points. But again. I was discussing the more practical nature of the form the religion takes rather than it's more spiritual intricacies when I was discussing community as a term.

Yahzi

12th September 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Christianity is a religion of evangelization and transmission from one person to another.
But not, apparently, by reasonable means.

Consider this: is it acceptable to raise your children Republican? Or are politics something that each individual, once they reach adulthood, has to decide on their own, based on their values and education? Obviously parents have the right to impart their values to their children, but that's not quite the same thing, is it?

Children are, by and large, raised in total ignorance of the doctrines of Quantum Mechanics. And yet QM is so compelling by force of reason that those young adults who decide to study physics almost always become won to its cause. Isn't the case for God at least as compelling as the case for QM? Doesn't that imply that any reasonable mind, once they choose to investigate the issue, will come to correct conclusion about God? So why indoctrinate children? Unless...