The Gospel according to Judas

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by White Doors

uuhhh.. THIS assumption:

"Thats something that Christians would not arm their children with."

That's the stupidest assumption I have seen in quite some time.
And talk about being hypocritical RIGHT after the fact.

haha
me thinks my toothpick is doing just fine.

Like I said...and perhaps your ability to read is limited...<sarcasm on>...what proof do YOU have to suggest that the average Christian teaches their children the benefits of Atheism? You sir are speaking out of an orifice not meant to talk.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Oh Flygirl...you get so hot under the collar....and still say absolutety nothing!
As Ive said over a hundred times now...so pay attention...I was raised to be a righteous and religious young man in a very religious family. I also dabbled in other religions along the way. I have as much knowledge and probably more than you do when it comes to Christians or others and what they would say/teach their kids when it comes to Atheism. As a matter of fact I never once heard in MY life, and never heard from any relative, friend or other I have talked to over the years, of a Christian family espousing the benefits of Atheism. Your pedestal Ms Fly is to assume I dont care about Christians as people and simply attack anything I say because I have a 180 degree philosophically different view than you do when it comes to religion. At least thats what you want to let me think.
My kids are well adjusted and happy, and I know you can attest to meeting one of them, and appeared to enjoy his company. The same son you met considers himself a Deist right now, and I certainly do not try to interfere with his choices. Young people tend to look behind many doors for answers that are generally right before their eyes in the first place. He will find the answer he chooses to live by...as will my other children.
Take my comments as you wish...if you consider it insulting then so be it...I could really give a ****e what you or any others think about my philosophy. However, when discussing something I think is relevant, I will chime in...as you do, as it is my right to do so. If you dont like it...well you know.
BTW...please when you are attributing something I have said, like the worms comment above, provide proof of your comment because otherwise it just shows YOUR inability to be open to others viewpoints without reason or hostility.

So because you've never experienced it, it hasn't happened? Right. Why is it that we have to provide proof, but you don't? Why is it hard to believe that my parents have told me that there are people out there who do not believe in God and therefore are only accountable to themselves, however they choose to be accountable to God as well as they believe He exists? Or are only your experiences the true ones?

You put words in my mouth Cheese. I never said you don't care about Christians. Nor do I attack everything you say. If you'll look very carefully at any post I've ever directed at you, I only ever attack you lumping all Christians in with others. Your experiences are not the only ones. We live in a new generation and while you may not see it, nor may your friends, people are starting to allow other thought in their households. You are one fine example of that. Is it so hard to think there may be a Christian out there opposite you who will also allow for discussion of athiesm in their home?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Like I said...and perhaps your ability to read is limited...<sarcasm on>...what proof do YOU have to suggest that the average Christian teaches their children the benefits of Atheism? You sir are speaking out of an orifice not meant to talk.

Now you are throwing in words that weren't there before, Cheese. You never said 'average' before. You put all Christians on the same level as one another. Let me tell you, I don't like being lumped in with the fundies.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Like I said...and perhaps your ability to read is limited...<sarcasm on>...what proof do YOU have to suggest that the average Christian teaches their children the benefits of Atheism? You sir are speaking out of an orifice not meant to talk.

If you say SOME Christians, ok. You could also say SOME parents. It's not Christian specific by any means. You made a blanket statement and I called you on it.

[White Doors]

Besides that, you're claim - you're burden of proof, not mine.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

What an assinine comment. Do you think I have been absent from any religious teachings over my 50 year life? Do you ASS U ME everything?
Ill bet you $1000 bucks that 99% of Christian households never discuss the MERITS of Atheism. What a silly comment.
Ill try to ignore your nun comment for awhile...unless you start making more silly comments.

Cheese, I respect your opinions for the most part, but iit seems a bit unbalanced from my perspective for you to declare that you discuss with your children the HYPORCISY of organized religion, and then insist that Christians should provide balance by teaching the MERITS of atheism to their own children. I assume you do not discuss merits in organized religion because you have been unable to discover any. This does not mean that there are none. On a related note, I am curious to know whet the merits of atheism are, and how they are incompatible with a Christian world view? As a parent, I will necessarily instruct my son according to my religious convictions (who wouldn't?). But success for me will not be measured in terms of his adoption of my religious convictions arbitrarily. If he grows to be an empathetic, responsible and moral person who is unwavering in his convictions, this is enough for me. If he can find his way through faith to endorse my religious beliefs, this is an added blessing. If he purports to be a Christian and fails to a moral person, I will be profoundly disappointed.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Cheese, I respect your opinions for the most part, but iit seems a bit unbalanced from my perspective for you to declare that you discuss with your children the HYPORCISY of organized religion, and then insist that Christians should provide balance by teaching the MERITS of atheism to their own children. I assume you do not discuss merits in organized religion because you have been unable to discover any. This does not mean that there are none. On a related note, I am curious to know whet the merits of atheism are, and how they are incompatible with a Christian world view? As a parent, I will necessarily instruct my son according to my religious convictions (who wouldn't?). But success for me will not be measured in terms of his adoption of my religious convictions arbitrarily. If he grows to be an empathetic, responsible and moral person who is unwavering in his convictions, this is enough for me. If he can find his way through faith to endorse my religious beliefs, this is an added blessing. If he purports to be a Christian and fails to a moral person, I will be profoundly disappointed.

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.
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?

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.

[FireFly]

I don't think any religions would argue those doctrines, except the one about not living by a religious doctrine.

[Textcritic]

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.

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).

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.

[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?

[Vulcan]

edited

[Vulcan]

Since we all have unique ideas of this life here is a link to something I appreciate http://e2ma.net/go/243699332/195141/...t/mavoh_vo.exe

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

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?

I would suggest that yours is probably the best and most comprehensive definition. I would classify a "Christian" as one who subscribes to the definition, but would necessarily include that a Christian has an opperative doctrine of the incarnation based on the divine nature of Jesus Christ (This is a major point of distinction which seperates Christians from JW's in particular and Mormons). Trinitarianism has been a fundamental doctrine among the vast majority of Christian sects for the better part of the last 1700 years.

Originally Posted by Cheese

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?

I rather like this game!
I did not mean to suggest that the Santa claus myth has no value, but it hardly compares in its theological importance to the flood narrative (which is coincidently very old; perhaps the most ancient tradition in all of scripture!). Like all traditions in the Bible. the Flood of Noah has undergone a very lengthy and complex development in its religious function and theological application. It forms the basis for most segments in rabbinic Judaism (and has functioned similarly for the Zadokites, Essenes and Samaritans) for their theology regarding original sin and the fall of mankind. It served as a programmatic explanation of the origin of language and race, and was the foundation for the original covenant with Moses. For Christians, the Noahic covenant is critical to offset the exclusivity of the later Mosaic covenant.
How would I explain all of this to a six year old (going on seven)? Thank God I do not have to yet! The best explanation I could come up with on the spot is that first of all, neither do I believe the Noiahic myth globally, nor literally. This myth (like ALL myths) has an historical basis, as this was the only method for historiography in the ancient, pre-literate, pre-scientific, pre-linear world. Whether or not there was a Noah,m or whether or not there was a flood (I believe there probably was a major regional flood upon which the myth is based)is really beside the point. The point is that Noah was declared righteous (i.e. in good standing with God) as a result of his faith (Hebrews 11 provides the classic Christian application for the Genesis 6 narrative).

Originally Posted by Cheese

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?

Whup! Look at the time1 I need to go pick up my son from scholl, so I will need to continue this later...

[Cheese]

oops double posted.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would suggest that yours is probably the best and most comprehensive definition. I would classify a "Christian" as one who subscribes to the definition, but would necessarily include that a Christian has an opperative doctrine of the incarnation based on the divine nature of Jesus Christ (This is a major point of distinction which seperates Christians from JW's in particular and Mormons). Trinitarianism has been a fundamental doctrine among the vast majority of Christian sects for the better part of the last 1700 years.



I rather like this game!
I did not mean to suggest that the Santa claus myth has no value, but it hardly compares in its theological importance to the flood narrative (which is coincidently very old; perhaps the most ancient tradition in all of scripture!). Like all traditions in the Bible. the Flood of Noah has undergone a very lengthy and complex development in its religious function and theological application. It forms the basis for most segments in rabbinic Judaism (and has functioned similarly for the Zadokites, Essenes and Samaritans) for their theology regarding original sin and the fall of mankind. It served as a programmatic explanation of the origin of language and race, and was the foundation for the original covenant with Moses. For Christians, the Noahic covenant is critical to offset the exclusivity of the later Mosaic covenant.
How would I explain all of this to a six year old (going on seven)? Thank God I do not have to yet! The best explanation I could come up with on the spot is that first of all, neither do I believe the Noiahic myth globally, nor literally. This myth (like ALL myths) has an historical basis, as this was the only method for historiography in the ancient, pre-literate, pre-scientific, pre-linear world. Whether or not there was a Noah,m or whether or not there was a flood (I believe there probably was a major regional flood upon which the myth is based)is really beside the point. The point is that Noah was declared righteous (i.e. in good standing with God) as a result of his faith (Hebrews 11 provides the classic Christian application for the Genesis 6 narrative).
Whup! Look at the time1 I need to go pick up my son from scholl, so I will need to continue this later...

Hope you got to the school on time....
Hebrews and Genesis..lots of good things to teach our kids...like...
Hebrews 11

11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So this would mean its impossible to please God unless you are a Christian?

11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

In Genesis (13:15, 15:18, 17:8) and Exodus (32:13) God promises Abraham and his descendants "the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession." But here Paul admits that God's promise went unfulfilled.

Genesis 6

6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
How many sons does God have? Do Angels have sex? Who were the Sons of God?

6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

God decides to kill all living things because the human imagination is evil. Later (8:21), after he kills everything, he promises never to do it again because the human imagination is evil.

6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

The Loving Lord is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all.

6:9 These are the generations of Noah:Noah was a just man and perfect Noah walked with God. in his generations, and

He didn't seem so just and perfect when he was drunk and naked in front of his sons (9:20-21). Has there ever been a just person?

6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
God was angry because "the earth was filled with violence." So he killed every living thing to make the world less violent?



A whole bunch of skeptical passages...not? Are they taught as Myths?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Cheese

So this would mean its impossible to please God unless you are a Christian?

That is what I was taught at Church Cheese.

"The only way to the Father is through me". Or something along those lines.

[Cheese]

Looks like the Pope aint buyin into the Judas theory...

Dirty double crosser!

Pope Benedict XVI Thursday recounted the Biblical betrayal of Jesus by Judas, calling the apostle a double-crosser for whom "money was more important than communion with Jesus, more important than God and his love."