[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

Ethics arent a Christian's stronghold, and yes we would probably agree on the majority of do right issues....as would "most" people.

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.

Based on the best definitions of Christianity I can find...
Christianity - a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

It has within its body the redemption, salvation theories along with the blessings and punishments that must be born within the dogma to keep its parrisioners in line.
Are other theistic practices part of the same dogma? Mormonism, JWs, Catholics? There are those who suggest otherwise, yet ask these Churches if they are Christians and I bet you can guess the answer.
So based on this , a Christian is anyone who has a personal definition of what Christianity really is? Seems fairly open based...but is it reality?

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).

OK lets play a game here. For a few minutes lets pretend that I am your older child.
"Dad...I simply cant believe that any man could build a boat big enough to hold all of the world's animals...yet alone two of each. Why does the Bible say its so?"

Why or how can you find the spiritual in that story vs the Santa Claus myth?

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.

Wow you use big words...wheres my Funk and Wagonal LOL. Damned PhDs!
The phenomonal and the unexplained can be just that...phenomonol and without knowledge. They dont have to be explained in a religious context do they?