Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cheese
Its quite simple....the kids go to school, friends homes, wherever. They get a dose of Christian theology and bring it home. We then discuss the merits/hypocrisy<sic> of anything brought into the house. As far as I know Atheists dont try to teach fantasy or dogma to strange children yet Christians feel the necessity to attempt it regularily. (Now as some have pointed out here, these Christians may be the radicals of their faith and dont represent the true Christian in todays society?) So wheres that Christian line? The majority here suggest they can read whatever they want into the Christian bible. They can digest the words and come up with their own sense of dogma....their own identity.
The definition(s) of a Christian " I think" are much firmer than the one that some people espouse.
|
Fair enough. But from my perspective, the "merits of atheism" are largely conducive with my own Christian principles. I believe you and I would agree in terms of ethical standards for human conduct and behaviour, however, the function of religion in my life is much broader than my endorsement of the prescriptions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cheese
I already talked about my kids...and what they want to be...its their choice 100%, and I support and love them no matter what that choice is. I do however believe they have a much more balanced look at things from discussing both the religious and scientific nature of things than the dogmatic Christian, Hindu or other Theistic flavor of the day. I dont think staunch Christians teach their children the world is older than....oh say 10,000 years old? I dont think staunch Christians teach their children that Noah could not have built an Arc big enough to house two of every animal?
|
By your standard, it seems that I am not a "staunch" Christian. I would describe myself quite differently. As for a definition, it is admittedly varied, and "Christian" means different things to different people. To be honest, it is a classification for me which determines the mode of my spiritual expression, but I would like to think that I am not bound in my thinking by this rubric alone. "Christian" provides the basic parametres for my thinking about God, but I also must recognize the limits that the human construction of "religion"—to which "Christian" belongs—will necessarily have on my access of the metaphysical. It is an imperfect system, but one which has best enabled me to access spirituality in a manner which I believe to be most effective.
There is profound spiritual value in the biblical stories of creation and the flood of Noah, and I do my best to emphasize the most important elements when discussing them within my family. To be honest, my son does not seem to be of the age to be asking some of the tough questions that he will undoubtedly ask at some point; those questions of how science and natural history corresponds with mythology. For the moment, he is content to believe the stories, much in the same respect that he is content to believe in the tooth fairy and the easter bunny (oddly enough, he has rejected the Santa Claus myth).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cheese
What are the Merits? Love thy neighbor....Dont kill...etc etc etc...But those theories arent a specific theory of Christians...they stole from Theist dogma before them.
troutman has the eloquence of putting words together without my bite. Thats his training. Im in Engineering so Im far more concrete in my ways and discussions. We both feel the exact same way in regards to theistic practices.
As to the Humanist manifesto and what you can teach your children....well troutman linked one of his...heres another...
I dont think many could argue these merits....unless you live via religious doctrine. |
Certainly, the merits cannot be argued, but my choice to explore these merits within a religious context, I believe, will provide for my son a secure foundation for spiritual exploration.
You have suggested that you believe your children have a more balanced perspective through endorsing your naturalistic worldview. I would argue that narrower almost never means balanced. Spirituality, metaphysics and the phenomenological are mysterious realms which I will continue to encourage my son to explore, but will never suggest that the inscrutable MUST be reduced to an explanation which corresponds with observable phenomena.