Have your children continued your faith traditions?

[Skeever]

As a (somewhat lapsed) Catholic, I've been on the fence about whether I should have our child Baptized. On one hand, my problems with the Catholic church have gone beyond mere nags in recent years, and I've found myself increasingly frustrated with not only the Church but the attitudes of other Catholics as well. On the other hand, I don't want my child to get much older without knowing that they have a firm cultural and spiritual center - Catholicism - that they can always choose to have a part of their life because their parents didn't decide for them that it was something that they didn't want. Personally, whether it's a language or some other tradition, I have only ever been disappointed upon learning of other sorts of traditions that left my family with my Grandfather's generation.

The other problem is - I don't want to do things halfway. If I am to get my child Baptized, I would like to a presence in the church community. But items such as the continual mismanagement of the sex abuse scandal, the known attitude of many Catholics on a myriad of topics, and the contradictory teachings of the Church (especially since the arrival of Francis), make it VERY difficult for me to say that the Catholic church is the type of organization I want my family being a part of. And yet, it would hurt family so much for me to be part of anything else, that I don't think there is any other way, aside from going through the motions, mass a few times per year, etc. 

[Stadler]

Catholic.  My child was baptized and attended a Catholic school for a while very early on.   

I have morphed in my thinking over the years - believe in a god, believe - somewhat - in the tenets of the church as a show of faith, but am not "practicing" - and have encouraged her to be introspective and to find her peace.  That's all you can do in today's seizure of a society. 

[lordxizor]

I know it's easier to stick with what is known, but if you don't like some things about the Catholic Church, perhaps find another denomination that fits your views better without the baggage that the Catholic Church has?

I grew up Lutheran. My wife and I have gone to Baptist churches for most of our marriage. We're raising our kids to be Christian and aren't concerned too much about denomination. We've been church hopping for a few years now and really need to settle in on a church. We just haven't been able to find the right one.

[Skeever]

I know it's easier to stick with what is known, but if you don't like some things about the Catholic Church, perhaps find another denomination that fits your views better without the baggage that the Catholic Church has?

I grew up Lutheran. My wife and I have gone to Baptist churches for most of our marriage. We're raising our kids to be Christian and aren't concerned too much about denomination. We've been church hopping for a few years now and really need to settle in on a church. We just haven't been able to find the right one.

Not sure about this. To me, this is a worse fate that just going through the motions. Because it's the family traditions that I want my child to have access to, not to just dump them into a new thing that I'm not fully on board with. But I guess there's a point there, maybe if I branched out a bit, I WOULD find something that I truly wanted to be a part of...

[lordxizor]

I know it's easier to stick with what is known, but if you don't like some things about the Catholic Church, perhaps find another denomination that fits your views better without the baggage that the Catholic Church has?

I grew up Lutheran. My wife and I have gone to Baptist churches for most of our marriage. We're raising our kids to be Christian and aren't concerned too much about denomination. We've been church hopping for a few years now and really need to settle in on a church. We just haven't been able to find the right one.

Not sure about this. To me, this is a worse fate that just going through the motions. Because it's the family traditions that I want my child to have access to, not to just dump them into a new thing that I'm not fully on board with. But I guess there's a point there, maybe if I branched out a bit, I WOULD find something that I truly wanted to be a part of...

Just think about the traditions that are meaningful to you. Most Christian denominations (expect some wierd ones) celebrate the major holidays like Christmas and Easter and stuff. Virtually all do communion. Baptism is pretty universal, but depending on the denomination the age at which you're baptised can be different. If the traditions that are meaningful to you are specifically Catholic one like the rosary and holy water and stuff like that you may be stuck with Catholicism. There are some more traditional Protestant denominations that would feel a little more like a Catholic church, like Lutheran. The key here needs to be whether you want yourself and your kids to have genuine faith, or if you just want them to enjoy religious traditions. Both have value and are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I personally focus on a church where I can grow my faith and be part of a community.

[Phoenix87x]

I don't have kids, but I certainly did not follow in the faith tradition of my Mom or Grandparents. I think they are catholic and they are deep believers.

Me on the other hand have been agnostic since about age 13.

[Grappler]

My wife and I are catholic, though non-practicing.  I think the Catholic church needs to realize that it's the 20th century and they could do some things to be more inclusive and finally own up to certain behaviors.  We are certainly believers, though we feel our beliefs are more personal relationships with a higher power as opposed to needing to gather once a week to worship.

We did have both of our children baptized.  My family has a 105 year old christening gown that has been worn by over thirty people across four generations.  We wanted our children to be part of that family tradition, which is also important to my mom - she was so happy to see them wear the same gown that she wore, her mom wore and that I wore.  We will send them to CDC school so they can learn about our religion.  Maybe we'll go to church at that time so the kids can be exposed to it.  Maybe we won't, or we'll just attend for the big holidays.

[cramx3]

My parents are catholic and tried very hard to force that on myself and all my siblings which had me reject it completely during my high school years.  So I would think that not forcing the religion on your children should be something to consider as well. 

I have morphed in my thinking over the years - believe in a god, believe - somewhat - in the tenets of the church as a show of faith, but am not "practicing" - and have encouraged her to be introspective and to find her peace.  That's all you can do in today's seizure of a society. 

This is kind of how I feel.  My own beliefs have changed but there is a core belief I have that is still rooted in catholicism but very much does not include the actual church and therefore I don't "practice" but I have found my peace and I think that's important in the end. 

Also, I don't have kids so I can't answer your question really, just sharing my own experience from when I was young in a religious family.

[gmillerdrake]

My wife was raised in a Catholic home and I wasn’t raised in any religion at all. We met at a non denomination Christian church and once we started our family have chosen to raise our boys in a Christian home.

As far as baptisms....our ‘faith’ leaves that up to the individual to choose when they want to be baptized. Our two oldest got baptized two years ago when they were 12/11 years old. Our youngest who is 10 wants to now.

We volunteer regularly with the outreaches through church and ‘try’ our best to instill the moral values and teachings of Christ but I’m sure we come up short at times.

[The Walrus]

I don't follow my mother's faith whatsoever. My father isn't religious, so I suppose technically I'm following his lead.

[Herrick]

I don't have kids, but I certainly did not follow in the faith tradition of my Mom or Grandparents. I think they are catholic and they are deep believers.

Me on the other hand have been agnostic since about age 13.

Same for me except I was 19.

Skeever, I don't know much about Catholicism. Are there other sects of Catholicism that you could raise your kid in? Or is it not considered true Catholicism if the other sects are not directly linked to the Roman Catholic Church?

I would think that there is some form of Catholicism out there that keeps the core tenets but doesn't officially support the main church.

[T-ski]

Both my wife and I were raised Catholic. I became disgruntled with it as a teenager and basically stopped all association with it. My wife still considers herself Catholic but doesn’t really practice it.  We made the decision when we had our son that we wouldn’t push religion on him but still let him get the crib notes version of the story of Jesus and the basis of Catholicism.

We never got our son baptized, much to our parents chagrin, but hey, it’s not their kid. 

[Skeever]

I don't have kids, but I certainly did not follow in the faith tradition of my Mom or Grandparents. I think they are catholic and they are deep believers.

Me on the other hand have been agnostic since about age 13.

Same for me except I was 19.

Skeever, I don't know much about Catholicism. Are there other sects of Catholicism that you could raise your kid in? Or is it not considered true Catholicism if the other sects are not directly linked to the Roman Catholic Church?

I would think that there is some form of Catholicism out there that keeps the core tenets but doesn't officially support the main church.

There are a few sects that are interesting and not terribly far from my home. One is the Ukranian Orthodox Church. This is basically the same as the Russian Orthodox church (pre-Vatican II style masses and decor). During the cold war, the Catholic Church let these churches come back into the fold while retaining much of the Orthodoxy, I suppose the Catholic Church at the time thought it was better to let that slide than have these churches go with whatever would become of the Russian Orthodox Church under Communism.

In general, a lot of younger Catholics seem to like it this way, and sort of want to see the Church return to a more traditional and conservative approach instead of the more lenient and less formal style that has been the trend over the decades and seems to offer laity almost nothing in terms of understanding God or even guidance through daily life. But it becomes very political, and off-putting, for me. A lot of these believers are tired of seeing the attitude that liberalism is inevitable, as evidence by articles like one posted on the national Catholic Reporter yesterday, about how "AOC is the future of the Catholic Church" (https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/ncr-connections/aoc-future-catholic-church?fbclid=IwAR28xx9dgdMB7ZTN9Vf5ChLXzviNQgOPqbdkY4l3Bopx-aGpILxjWEiUFrE).

I'm a bit in the middle. I disagree with a great deal of Catholic Catechism, on a personal level. I also disagree with the way the Church is managing through the changing times, with certain voices simply willing to throw traditional thinking into the fire for no other reason than fear that people will turn from the Church if the Church does not adapt to them. But it is highly political, and I don't have much of an appetite for that either. On the flip-side of "modern Catholic religiosity" there are deeply conservative and fundamentalist strains that really don't appeal to me and the way I would engage with faith for myself or my family either.

[Stadler]

I think there's an important point here to be made and I want to be very clear THIS IS ME; I don't judge others for thinking different, and I understand that what I'm about to say runs afoul of some churches.   

I know for me, the 'evangelizing' is a problem.  I don't mean the "evangelical church", I mean the literal process of spreading the word. I don't feel a need to get others to see my religion/faith/belief as I do, and that includes my children.  I'm blessed in that my kid is smart as a whip, perhaps even smarter than me in her own way.  I want her to not only find her peace, but to experience that journey OF finding her peace.  I wound up surprisingly close to where my parents (well, my mom; my dad is still scarred from the beatings he took from the nuns, I say only half-jokingly) are, but I feel like I got there honestly.   

I'm also a little distrustful of "lay people" spreading that word. (Again, I want to be really clear about the above; I don't judge everyone that does contribute or that doesn't have my hangup; I just have certain experiences that lead me to that conclusion  - and no, not the obvious).  One of the few things that I do value in the Catholic Church is that the priests are NOT lay people.  The clergy are not the same as the congregation, and I take some comfort in that.  Whether my child finds those beliefs to be truths as well, I don't know, but I'm not going to force her to acknowledge that.

[Skeever]

I'm also a little distrustful of "lay people" spreading that word. (Again, I want to be really clear about the above; I don't judge everyone that does contribute or that doesn't have my hangup; I just have certain experiences that lead me to that conclusion  - and no, not the obvious).  One of the few things that I do value in the Catholic Church is that the priests are NOT lay people.  The clergy are not the same as the congregation, and I take some comfort in that. 

And yet, when you routinely see authorities at every level saying and doing things that are vague, inconsistent with prior teachings, and even contradictory with current teachings, all without the slightest bit of accountability, suddenly that authority becomes a liability for me. Because now I am back at the place that initially led me away from the Church when I was 13 years old: I have been shown something that does not make sense, and told that I must respect authorities who will make sense of it for me (when they disagree with themselves, as well as each other, if they even care). So, that's where I'm at. This isn't meant to be a debate - I have no problem with anyone who can participate in the Church in this way. But it's that kind of passive, rote engagement with the Church that led me away to begin with.

[Stadler]

No, there's no conflict here; I'm not going into all of it just out of respect for the rest of the thread.  But I see what you do.  I had a series of fairly deep conversations with a priest while I was at Uconn and it helped form a lot of where my head is at now. 

I merely meant that there was SOME distinction between the guy that I also saw at baseball practice and at high school functions and the guy I'm looking to for spiritual insight.   I find it hard to explain, but I think there's a comfort or a benefit in having no conflict of interest. 

[Herrick]

There are a few sects that are interesting and not terribly far from my home. One is the Ukranian Orthodox Church. This is basically the same as the Russian Orthodox church (pre-Vatican II style masses and decor). During the cold war, the Catholic Church let these churches come back into the fold while retaining much of the Orthodoxy, I suppose the Catholic Church at the time thought it was better to let that slide than have these churches go with whatever would become of the Russian Orthodox Church under Communism.

In general, a lot of younger Catholics seem to like it this way, and sort of want to see the Church return to a more traditional and conservative approach instead of the more lenient and less formal style that has been the trend over the decades and seems to offer laity almost nothing in terms of understanding God or even guidance through daily life. But it becomes very political, and off-putting, for me. A lot of these believers are tired of seeing the attitude that liberalism is inevitable, as evidence by articles like one posted on the national Catholic Reporter yesterday, about how "AOC is the future of the Catholic Church" (https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/ncr-connections/aoc-future-catholic-church?fbclid=IwAR28xx9dgdMB7ZTN9Vf5ChLXzviNQgOPqbdkY4l3Bopx-aGpILxjWEiUFrE).

I'm a bit in the middle. I disagree with a great deal of Catholic Catechism, on a personal level. I also disagree with the way the Church is managing through the changing times, with certain voices simply willing to throw traditional thinking into the fire for no other reason than fear that people will turn from the Church if the Church does not adapt to them. But it is highly political, and I don't have much of an appetite for that either. On the flip-side of "modern Catholic religiosity" there are deeply conservative and fundamentalist strains that really don't appeal to me and the way I would engage with faith for myself or my family either.

You're in a tough spot. I don't have any good advice as I'm not a believer and know very little about Catholicism. I hope you come to a decision feels right for you and your family.

I know for me, the 'evangelizing' is a problem.  I don't mean the "evangelical church", I mean the literal process of spreading the word. I don't feel a need to get others to see my religion/faith/belief as I do, and that includes my children.  I'm blessed in that my kid is smart as a whip, perhaps even smarter than me in her own way.  I want her to not only find her peace, but to experience that journey OF finding her peace.  I wound up surprisingly close to where my parents (well, my mom; my dad is still scarred from the beatings he took from the nuns, I say only half-jokingly) are, but I feel like I got there honestly.   

I don't have any numbers or stats and I can only go from my own experience 20 years ago. I believe these people genuinely want to help others and the fear of hell is a real thing for them. I can see why they want to evangelize.

[Orbert]

I read a quote from someone -- I don't remember who -- to the effect that if they had a friend who claimed to be Christian, but did not try to convert them, then they knew that that person was not a true Christian.  If you honestly believed that after you die, you were going to live forever in a beautiful paradise, and everyone else was going to burn in eternal torment, and you didn't at least try to get every one of your friends on board, then either you don't really believe it or you're not a good friend, which means you don't really believe it anyway.  I couldn't find any hole in that argument.  That's not meant to be a challenge, but I suppose it could be.  I'm curious what others think of that line of reasoning.  Today, the mantra is to leave it be, let everyone decide for themselves, don't ask, don't tell, etc.  I get that, but his point was sound.  If you really believed it, wouldn't you want every one of your friends to come with you?  Could you really live happily forever in paradise knowing how many of your friends are burning in Hell?

I was raised United Methodist, and so was my wife.  We raised our kids in the United Methodist church and emphasized its tenets early on, but to be honest, I'm pretty much agnostic today, and allowed my kids to make their own choices.  I do believe that there is much good in basic Christian beliefs.  Love your neighbor, help other people at all times, don't kill, don't steal, don't swear, all that.  The Ten Commandments and everything else.  We've had a number of conversations about the ones "who go to far" and somehow twist Christ's teachings into hate and bigotry.  Basically, we're pushing the good stuff and dismissing that bad, as I see it.  I've always tried to present both sides of things to my kids, make my position and recommendations clear, but allow them to make their own choices.

Recently, the United Methodist Church officially restated their position condemning homosexuality and basically anything other than straight heterosexual behavior, amongst both its clergy and its members.  For that reason, my local church, the one I still attend (or did before the lockdowns) has been actively standing against the official church.  We have a rainbow flag displayed proudly on our building (we're on our fourth one now) and in our entrance way, and every sermon has at least a few "all inclusive" words.  We're basically daring the high council or whatever they are to come in and do something about it.  We're pretty safe, though, because our bishop is a lesbian.  As far as I'm concerned the whole concept of "church politics" is an oxymoron in the first place.

To answer the original question, Yes and No.  Literally.  My daughter attends a Christian university, goes to church, and like me, condemns the bigotry and hatred preached by the church itself, while embracing the positive aspects like love and community.  My son is full Atheist at this point.  He thinks it's all crap.  That started during his regular teenage rebellion and pretty much grew from there.

[Stadler]

I read a quote from someone -- I don't remember who -- to the effect that if they had a friend who claimed to be Christian, but did not try to convert them, then they knew that that person was not a true Christian.  If you honestly believed that after you die, you were going to live forever in a beautiful paradise, and everyone else was going to burn in eternal torment, and you didn't at least try to get every one of your friends on board, then either you don't really believe it or you're not a good friend, which means you don't really believe it anyway.  I couldn't find any hole in that argument.  That's not meant to be a challenge, but I suppose it could be.  I'm curious what others think of that line of reasoning.  Today, the mantra is to leave it be, let everyone decide for themselves, don't ask, don't tell, etc.  I get that, but his point was sound.  If you really believed it, wouldn't you want every one of your friends to come with you?  Could you really live happily forever in paradise knowing how many of your friends are burning in Hell?

I have a LOT of problems with that argument. 

First - and there's a term for it, I'm just blanking on it - but that form of argument, that sort of assumes the answer through a tautology - is annoying.   Don't question my intent, and play on my emotions and doubts, in order to push your agenda.  (All "you's" are general, Orbert, and have nothing to do with you personally).

Second, there is nothing "christian" - small "c" - in that definition of "true Christian".  Nothing about any of the tenets of the religion, no reference to any rules or guidelines for the treatment of fellow man, no guidelines for how to conduct oneself in a community, no guidelines for how to comply with the teachings of Christ or his disciples, just simply a self-proclaimed devout belief in a certain vision of the afterlife and a rote "sale" of that vision to others. 

Third, it's trying to objectify a subjective, personal decision.  I think Kiss's music is sublime, the perfect blend of rock, melody, escapism and release.   I feel no need to make sure you - an intelligent, sentient, competent being with the ability and facility to draw your own conclusions as to what is right for you - see that music the same way I do.  It's a matter of prioritization.   I prioritize YOUR free will, YOUR ability to draw conclusions and YOUR ability to see the world through clear eyes, more than I do my perception of what a spiritual healing looks like.   I would say that if I really was your true friend, I would know - not believe, but KNOW - that you have the judgment, intelligence and insight to see what spiritual release is right for you.

Fourth, it makes too many literal assumptions (I think - I don't know, but I think - this goes to the definition of "Christian").  If you believe "Christian" means the more literal interpretation of the Bible, as adopted by several of the Baptist sects, then maybe; if you believe that "Christian" means a more general belief in Christ as a the son of God (and the Holy Trinity) then perhaps the form and format of the afterlife is different.   I don't necessarily believe in the actual concept of literal "hell" with "burning".  I don't know that I believe in any specific practical "afterlife"; I simply do not know.   I do believe there is something beyond just worms, dirt or a kiln, but I'm human; my knowledge is incomplete and subject to error and mistake.   

If all this makes me "not a true Christian" then so be it.  I think that judgment by someone who has never met me, never spoken to be about matters of faith, and never tested my resolve in moments of crisis is incapable of making that determination.

I was raised United Methodist, and so was my wife.  We raised our kids in the United Methodist church and emphasized its tenets early on, but to be honest, I'm pretty much agnostic today, and allowed my kids to make their own choices.  I do believe that there is much good in basic Christian beliefs.  Love your neighbor, help other people at all times, don't kill, don't steal, don't swear, all that.  The Ten Commandments and everything else.  We've had a number of conversations about the ones "who go to far" and somehow twist Christ's teachings into hate and bigotry.  Basically, we're pushing the good stuff and dismissing that bad, as I see it.  I've always tried to present both sides of things to my kids, make my position and recommendations clear, but allow them to make their own choices.

I would point out that much in that paragraph runs afoul of the first; can a hateful and bigoted person be a "true Christian"?  I personally don't think so, but it's very easy for a hateful and bigoted person to meet the criteria of the first paragraph.

Recently, the United Methodist Church officially restated their position condemning homosexuality and basically anything other than straight heterosexual behavior, amongst both its clergy and its members.  For that reason, my local church, the one I still attend (or did before the lockdowns) has been actively standing against the official church.  We have a rainbow flag displayed proudly on our building (we're on our fourth one now) and in our entrance way, and every sermon has at least a few "all inclusive" words.  We're basically daring the high council or whatever they are to come in and do something about it.  We're pretty safe, though, because our bishop is a lesbian.  As far as I'm concerned the whole concept of "church politics" is an oxymoron in the first place.

FROM A PURE RELIGION STANDPOINT, I'm of two minds on the notion of "homosexuality".  I think the idea of thinking homosexuality a sin is different than the idea of refusing service to homosexuals, or to denying them jobs, etc.   There is plenty that you and I do on a daily basis that is "sin".  There's no magic to "being born that way" that makes something free from classification as sin.   There are plenty of things that we as humans have little or no actual control over that are deemed "sins".   "Lusting after your neighbors wife" is technically a sin.   Any psychologist worth his/her salt will tell you that your thoughts and feelings are not always in your control.   The control is in what you do with it.   I personally kind of feel it's a stupid fight on behalf of the church, but I'm not sure it is necessarily "hate" and "bigotry" in the same, secular way that it has encroached on our politics.  Would you necessarily feel the same way if you plugged in other "sins" into that analysis?  Having said all that, I DO have a problem with churches that close doors to homosexuals; that's more fundamentally a statement about the person and kind of runs afoul of the notion of man as imperfectly made in the image of God, and thus a sinner by nature (yes, I'm aware that many sects require a statement of disavowal for sin, and a pledge to move away from sin; we're getting off topic to delve into those subjects here).

[Orbert]

Your interpretation of Christian is pretty different from mine, then.  I find it interesting that you even allow for the existence of "christian" with a small "c".  Christ was a person, so any adjective form of His name is a proper adjective and is thus capitalized.  By intentionally not capitalizing the word, my impression is that you mean to denigrate those who claim to be Christian, but by their actions clearly prove that they are not.  People like the Westboro Baptist Church, who demean the words "Baptist" and even "Church" with their teachings of hate and xenophobia.  I kinda like that idea, but still cringe a bit at the intentional misspelling.

There are many Bible verses which say that you should "spread the word".  Openly proclaim your faith, give over your life to Him, and never cease to share the good news.  And of course there are The Ten Commandments.  I'm not sure how you can say that there's nothing there that dictates behavior and how to conduct yourself.

You also have to remember that this quote was (I believe -- I can't remember who it's from) was from someone who is apparently not a Christian.  To him, the idea that you honestly believe that you will live forever in paradise, yet are fine leaving your friends and loved ones behind to suffer for eternity, shows that either you don't actually believe it, or you don't love those who you claim to love.  And since Christ literally commanded us to love everybody, that doesn't leave much wiggle room.  It's a pretty simple statement, actually.  I'm not sure why you feel the need to convolute it with several paragraphs that, really, don't respond directly to the core of the statement.

I agree with nearly everything you wrote, by the way.  I just don't see any of it as a counterargument.  The teachings of the Bible are open to interpretation, way too open in many cases, but in some cases they're pretty clear.  Believe, and you will live forever.  Do you believe it or don't you?  And if you really believe it, how can you not want to get everybody you know and love on board?

I'm also admitting that by that measure, I'm not a "true Christian" either.  I may be misremembering the quote; he may have say "real Christian" or something similar.  The idea is the same.  You either believe it or you don't.  You either practice it or you don't.  That's all I'm saying.  Everyone has their own interpretation and is free to make their own decisions, but some things really are black and white.

[gmillerdrake]

I’m not the type of Christian who evangelizes in the way where I’m out actively telling people about Christ and trying to ‘save’ people. IMO that is kind of off putting to people if you just come at them. One of the quotes our family tries to live by is “Always preach the Gospel and if needed, use words”. Meaning, we try to preach the Gospel through our actions and way of life. I’m absolutely not able to do so at all times but my/our hope is that will be an example to those who observe us and maybe be curious enough to either ask or investigate ‘why’ we hold the hope we do or react/say the things we say and do.

[Stadler]

Your interpretation of Christian is pretty different from mine, then.  I find it interesting that you even allow for the existence of "christian" with a small "c".  Christ was a person, so any adjective form of His name is a proper adjective and is thus capitalized.  By intentionally not capitalizing the word, my impression is that you mean to denigrate those who claim to be Christian, but by their actions clearly prove that they are not.  People like the Westboro Baptist Church, who demean the words "Baptist" and even "Church" with their teachings of hate and xenophobia.  I kinda like that idea, but still cringe a bit at the intentional misspelling.

NO NO NO.  My bad - very much my bad - if you take it that way.  I meant to say the general principles of what one would presume of a devoutly religious person, but independent of any sect or branch of "Christianity".  There is NO denigration whatsoever, though I am trying to separate from the more extreme examples of Christianity (like you reference with WBC).  I tried to make the point allowing that someone could adhere to the tenets of a certain church without actually adhering to (or promoting) the church itself. 

There are many Bible verses which say that you should "spread the word".  Openly proclaim your faith, give over your life to Him, and never cease to share the good news.  And of course there are The Ten Commandments.  I'm not sure how you can say that there's nothing there that dictates behavior and how to conduct yourself.

I understand that; it's certainly a fair criticism of my point to say that "I (Stadler) am not talking about real Christianity, then".   I know for me, I've read the Bible a couple times now (three? maybe four.) and largely take it as a spiritual book to find guidance from, but not an owner's manual, to be followed literally step by step.  If it's a predicate to be a "real Christian" that we agree that the bible is a literal roadmap, then we're talking past each other here.   

You also have to remember that this quote was (I believe -- I can't remember who it's from) was from someone who is apparently not a Christian.  To him, the idea that you honestly believe that you will live forever in paradise, yet are fine leaving your friends and loved ones behind to suffer for eternity, shows that either you don't actually believe it, or you don't love those who you claim to love.  And since Christ literally commanded us to love everybody, that doesn't leave much wiggle room.  It's a pretty simple statement, actually.  I'm not sure why you feel the need to convolute it with several paragraphs that, really, don't respond directly to the core of the statement.

It's simple, but that doesn't make it true.  It's predicated, in my opinion, on a faulty premise.   I don't know of any definition of "Christian" that requires you to believe that the afterlife is a literal "eternal life in paradise".  I'm not surprised that it's by a non-believer, since it smacks of the kind of logical sledgehammer that someone like a Christopher Hitchens would use.  I've read Hitchens a couple times as well, and he's very enamored with that kind of challenging logic puzzle that makes so many assumptions that it doesn't really stand up to any broad scrutiny.

I agree with nearly everything you wrote, by the way.  I just don't see any of it as a counterargument.  The teachings of the Bible are open to interpretation, way too open in many cases, but in some cases they're pretty clear.  Believe, and you will live forever.  Do you believe it or don't you?  And if you really believe it, how can you not want to get everybody you know and love on board?

But forget about the rest, if you have a problem with it.  That's fair; it's just my opinion.   But even just that last sentence is fraught with assumptions.  I'm not that guy in any aspect of my life.  I don't push my tastes/likes/beliefs on anyone.  Socially, politically, culturally.    I love my wife; I don't have any need to "make" her enjoy the company of the friends I also love.  I don't have any need to "make" her see the world as I do politically, even though the same can be said in terms of "benefit" to her.   I trust her and value her and respect her as a human being - as a child of God, made in his image and as my equal - to make her own choices.  In my view, that's a much more powerful statement on my belief than trying to coerce her into seeing things my way.  (I'm even going to go further and say that's a bastardization, a twisting, of some of Christ's teachings on humility and place in the community).   I think that's an essence of "belief" for many "unbelievers" is hard to rationalize.   I BELIEVE in a god.  I personally have little doubt after the review of the (limited) evidence that is available to me.  I also recognize that I know only a fraction of a fraction of what I would NEED to know to have any substantive understanding of the spiritual makeup of our universe.  I CAN believe and yet leave the door open to doubt on the particulars.  I don't, for example, know whether the afterlife is only available to those that come of their belief in good faith of their own accord.   How many fantasy novels require the protagonist to come of their "power" (whatever it is) honestly and not out of luck or fate?   

I'm also admitting that by that measure, I'm not a "true Christian" either.  I may be misremembering the quote; he may have say "real Christian" or something similar.  The idea is the same.  You either believe it or you don't.  You either practice it or you don't.  That's all I'm saying.  Everyone has their own interpretation and is free to make their own decisions, but some things really are black and white.

I suppose; I just don't see the necessary logical connection between "believing or not" and "telling people". 

[Stadler]

I’m not the type of Christian who evangelizes in the way where I’m out actively telling people about Christ and trying to ‘save’ people. IMO that is kind of off putting to people if you just come at them. One of the quotes our family tries to live by is “Always preach the Gospel and if needed, use words”. Meaning, we try to preach the Gospel through our actions and way of life. I’m absolutely not able to do so at all times but my/our hope is that will be an example to those who observe us and maybe be curious enough to either ask or investigate ‘why’ we hold the hope we do or react/say the things we say and do.

I'm almost positive that he didn't mean it in this context,  but I love Hogarth's line in "Neverland":  "I want to be someone that someone wants to be."   That line changed my life, in many ways.

[hunnus2000]

Many years ago, I gave up religion for lent and never  looked back. I realized I was really not being honest with myself because I really didn't believe in a god, a Jesus or a devil so going to church was nothing less than hypocritical. It took me awhile to completely deconvert because that shit was ingrained in me since childhood (Catholic).

Fast-forward to the early 2000's - my 12 year-old stepson asked why we didn't go to church on Sundays like every other family. I told him we are non-believers and I had no interest in supporting any church or religion but if wanted to explore religious beliefs than by all means go right ahead and it was up to him not me or his mother to decide for him. He started to go to church with one of his friends and was pretty regular - until he graduated high school. The two went to different colleges and he stopped going and when I asked why, he said he never really believed, he was just going for the friendship. Just as I expected...

The trend for religiosity is trending downward in this country and it can't trend down fast enough for me.

[gmillerdrake]

The trend for religiosity is trending downward in this country and it can't trend down fast enough for me.

Yep......and you can see the effects in our culture. Ripe with selfishness and caring for ‘I’ over we or ‘you’.....morality is an inconvenience rather than a tether to our humanity.

It’s fine to be anti religion. I get it due to the injustices that have taken place in the name of God but people exploiting it.....but to pretend mankind is somehow ‘better off’ not seeking a spiritual clarity is silly

[hunnus2000]

The trend for religiosity is trending downward in this country and it can't trend down fast enough for me.

Yep......and you can see the effects in our culture. Ripe with selfishness and caring for ‘I’ over we or ‘you’.....morality is an inconvenience rather than a tether to our humanity.

It’s fine to be anti religion. I get it due to the injustices that have taken place in the name of God but people exploiting it.....but to pretend mankind is somehow ‘better off’ not seeking a spiritual clarity is silly

The idea of "spiritual clarity" just as silly. One can be good without god or gods. But I see proof everyday where exploration of religion has done more harm than good for mankind.   

[gmillerdrake]

The trend for religiosity is trending downward in this country and it can't trend down fast enough for me.

Yep......and you can see the effects in our culture. Ripe with selfishness and caring for ‘I’ over we or ‘you’.....morality is an inconvenience rather than a tether to our humanity.

It’s fine to be anti religion. I get it due to the injustices that have taken place in the name of God but people exploiting it.....but to pretend mankind is somehow ‘better off’ not seeking a spiritual clarity is silly

The idea of "spiritual clarity" just as silly. One can be good without god or gods. But I see proof everyday where exploration of religion has done more harm than good for mankind.

Yeah. We’re on complete opposite ends on this and is probably pointless to continue discussing.

[El Barto]

I read a quote from someone -- I don't remember who -- to the effect that if they had a friend who claimed to be Christian, but did not try to convert them, then they knew that that person was not a true Christian.  If you honestly believed that after you die, you were going to live forever in a beautiful paradise, and everyone else was going to burn in eternal torment, and you didn't at least try to get every one of your friends on board, then either you don't really believe it or you're not a good friend, which means you don't really believe it anyway.  I couldn't find any hole in that argument.  That's not meant to be a challenge, but I suppose it could be.  I'm curious what others think of that line of reasoning.  Today, the mantra is to leave it be, let everyone decide for themselves, don't ask, don't tell, etc.  I get that, but his point was sound.  If you really believed it, wouldn't you want every one of your friends to come with you?  Could you really live happily forever in paradise knowing how many of your friends are burning in Hell?

I've always liked this argument, and have thrown it about myself, but only as a joke. "If you were really a Christian you'd be concerned enough for my soul to do [insert something stupid here]. (I'm still waiting for a pretty girl to knock on my door out proselytizing.) The reality, though, is that it denies the significance of freewill. To be clear, I think freewill is a myth, but then I'm not using it as a core component of my spiritual belief. Christians are, and if they actually care about their faith, it's important that they allow people to make their own decisions.

[El Barto]

One of the quotes our family tries to live by is “Always preach the Gospel and if needed, use words”.

I like this a lot. I'd prefer to see a few "really"s between if and needed, but overall it's a fine way to approach it.

The trend for religiosity is trending downward in this country and it can't trend down fast enough for me.

Yep......and you can see the effects in our culture. Ripe with selfishness and caring for ‘I’ over we or ‘you’.....morality is an inconvenience rather than a tether to our humanity.

It’s fine to be anti religion. I get it due to the injustices that have taken place in the name of God but people exploiting it.....but to pretend mankind is somehow ‘better off’ not seeking a spiritual clarity is silly

What you overlook is that a whole lot of that selfishness, and dare I say, immorality, is coming from other so-called Christians. I've got no problem with a spiritual clarity, but you have to understand that at the end of the day we all make up our own spiritual beliefs, and clarity in those beliefs is only as beneficial as what they are. Eric Rudolph was clearly certain in his beliefs, and I'd bet that you and he would disagree quite strongly over which one of you was operating under the auspices of Christ.

[El Barto]

And to address the OP, my family was fairly non-religious, so I'd say I've gone even further. My mom took us to Episcopal church when I was a lad, and I remember being baptized when I was very young, but it seemed to be more of an exploration for her than a real belief in anything. I did my best to believe up until I spent a year in a non-denominational Christian school, and figured out that it was all rubbish. I still put a fair amount of thought into the nature of things, though, if there is a God and whatnot, and while I'm far more certain about it than my mom, I'd say that I've certainly inherited her questioning nature.

[Stadler]

Many years ago, I gave up religion for lent and never  looked back. I realized I was really not being honest with myself because I really didn't believe in a god, a Jesus or a devil so going to church was nothing less than hypocritical. It took me awhile to completely deconvert because that shit was ingrained in me since childhood (Catholic).

Fast-forward to the early 2000's - my 12 year-old stepson asked why we didn't go to church on Sundays like every other family. I told him we are non-believers and I had no interest in supporting any church or religion but if wanted to explore religious beliefs than by all means go right ahead and it was up to him not me or his mother to decide for him. He started to go to church with one of his friends and was pretty regular - until he graduated high school. The two went to different colleges and he stopped going and when I asked why, he said he never really believed, he was just going for the friendship. Just as I expected...

The trend for religiosity is trending downward in this country and it can't trend down fast enough for me.

Gary touched on this, but I made very clear to my daughter and step son (the other two stepkids are old enough to figure this out on their own) that there is a DISTINCT difference between "religion" and "god/spirituality".   Throwing out the concept of "god" because of one church that happens to worship him/her is illogical.   Hitchens repeatedly blurred these lines in his critiques; there are many examples of him refuting the presence of God because a man (as in human, as in prone to mistake and error) acted in some form or fashion.   I know for me, I haven't attended an organized worship in a church in decades but I do believe in (a) god, and have gone to a church on off hours as a place of sanctuary (in other words, I'd be left alone to my voices, in a peaceful and relaxing setting). 

I tend to think the trend is a misleading one, meaning, we're capturing the people like you that kind of were already there, but dragged feet on giving up the ghost, no pun intended, or were otherwise reluctant to identify as an atheist.  We're still BY FAR a nation that believes in a god, even if there isn't a corresponding religious worship. 

[gmillerdrake]

One of the quotes our family tries to live by is “Always preach the Gospel and if needed, use words”.

I like this a lot. I'd prefer to see a few "really"s between if and needed, but overall it's a fine way to approach it.

The trend for religiosity is trending downward in this country and it can't trend down fast enough for me.

Yep......and you can see the effects in our culture. Ripe with selfishness and caring for ‘I’ over we or ‘you’.....morality is an inconvenience rather than a tether to our humanity.

It’s fine to be anti religion. I get it due to the injustices that have taken place in the name of God but people exploiting it.....but to pretend mankind is somehow ‘better off’ not seeking a spiritual clarity is silly

What you overlook is that a whole lot of that selfishness, and dare I say, immorality, is coming from other so-called Christians. I've got no problem with a spiritual clarity, but you have to understand that at the end of the day we all make up our own spiritual beliefs, and clarity in those beliefs is only as beneficial as what they are. Eric Rudolph was clearly certain in his beliefs, and I'd bet that you and he would disagree quite strongly over which one of you was operating under the auspices of Christ.

You won’t find me arguing for or trying to defend people who claim to be Christian but in near every aspect of their lives they are living their life outside of Christ’s teachings. It’s pretty easy to start cherry picking the things you like about Christianity but ignore the things that are difficult to adhere to. There is A LOT of that going on these days.....a sort of modified Christianity that really isn’t anything other than self help spiritualism.

I’m trying to be an example to my kids and others by being a Christian....a Christ follower. That’s uncomfortable for some because when you dig into what Christ teaches nowhere will you see him ask you to ‘hate’ ANYONE. Not homosexuals or Muslims or Jewish people.....no one. He emphatically challenges us to LOVE one another at all costs because Love really can overcome anything. It’s just really difficult when your battling instinctual impulses.....to ‘love’ at all times.

[Stadler]

I read a quote from someone -- I don't remember who -- to the effect that if they had a friend who claimed to be Christian, but did not try to convert them, then they knew that that person was not a true Christian.  If you honestly believed that after you die, you were going to live forever in a beautiful paradise, and everyone else was going to burn in eternal torment, and you didn't at least try to get every one of your friends on board, then either you don't really believe it or you're not a good friend, which means you don't really believe it anyway.  I couldn't find any hole in that argument.  That's not meant to be a challenge, but I suppose it could be.  I'm curious what others think of that line of reasoning.  Today, the mantra is to leave it be, let everyone decide for themselves, don't ask, don't tell, etc.  I get that, but his point was sound.  If you really believed it, wouldn't you want every one of your friends to come with you?  Could you really live happily forever in paradise knowing how many of your friends are burning in Hell?

I've always liked this argument, and have thrown it about myself, but only as a joke. "If you were really a Christian you'd be concerned enough for my soul to do [insert something stupid here]. (I'm still waiting for a pretty girl to knock on my door out proselytizing.) The reality, though, is that it denies the significance of freewill. To be clear, I think freewill is a myth, but then I'm not using it as a core component of my spiritual belief. Christians are, and if they actually care about their faith, it's important that they allow people to make their own decisions.

I have this mental picture of you standing in your door frame with a Slayer t-shirt on and... well, you can certainly fill in the rest.   

More seriously, though; we've talked about that notion you have of "free will" and I've adopted a good part of it, because I think it makes a lot of sense, and is supported by science.  But whatever you call it, I think you've touched on the key part of my argument.  I think there's value in allowing and honoring individual people being individual people.

[Adami]

I’m trying to be an example to my kids and others by being a Christian....a Christ follower. That’s uncomfortable for some because when you dig into what Christ teaches nowhere will you see him ask you to ‘hate’ ANYONE. Not homosexuals or Muslims or Jewish people.....no one. He emphatically challenges us to LOVE one another at all costs because Love really can overcome anything. It’s just really difficult when your battling instinctual impulses.....to ‘love’ at all times.

What about the French?

[hunnus2000]

The trend for religiosity is trending downward in this country and it can't trend down fast enough for me.

Yep......and you can see the effects in our culture. Ripe with selfishness and caring for ‘I’ over we or ‘you’.....morality is an inconvenience rather than a tether to our humanity.

It’s fine to be anti religion. I get it due to the injustices that have taken place in the name of God but people exploiting it.....but to pretend mankind is somehow ‘better off’ not seeking a spiritual clarity is silly

The idea of "spiritual clarity" just as silly. One can be good without god or gods. But I see proof everyday where exploration of religion has done more harm than good for mankind.

Yeah. We’re on complete opposite ends on this and is probably pointless to continue discussing.

I fat fingered and typed exploration and meant exploitation.