Growing up in an irreligious household.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by JohnT
I'm trying to convince Laura to participate in this thread - but no success so far.

smart woman

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I would have to disagree. No resurrection, no basis for YOUR brand of Christianity.

See, lots of people think that a good deal of what Jesus said (or Paul said, whatever) is a smashingly good philosophy to live by. The basics of "Love one another," the golden rule, etc. are very powerful ethical statements, ones that really haven't been improved upon. So if one sees the moral teachings of Christianity as the best around and so is Christian because of that, I don't see why the reality of a resurrection is necessary. You may not consider such folks "Christian," but that's not really your judgment to make.

Oh, and many ancient religions featured gods who died and were resurrected, including Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Dionysus, Mithra, etc. Osiris, in fact, was killed, resurrected and then ascended to the Egyptian "heaven" to judge the dead and send them to the appropriate place in the afterlife.

For once I actually agree with you.

I think over the centuries the message has been lost because of dogma.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by JohnT
I'm trying to convince Laura to participate in this thread - but no success so far.

But this has been such a friendly chat. What could have scared her off?

/me checks to see if he's been too preachy

[Alexander's Horse]

I always come here for parenting advice.

[Straybow]

/me realizes he didn't post a response 'cos Settler2 was down

Originally posted by JohnT
"The central mystery of Christianity isn't some avataristic manifestation supplied as a humanistic example or social tool. "

So what is the central mystery?

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
It's still going

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Actually, if this EXACT THING was taught as a core priniciple of Christianity, it would be a much cooler religion.

Yes, it is "still going," and that is what it taught in many churches. And it is way cool!

The Incarnation is practical—as a whole person the Son became a human being. This was not to provide an example of what a human could be, as though by some effort you or I could follow and become what He is.

Towards man, He delivered a message: that He was doing God's will in making a way for us where we fall short. Everything else was directed towards God: taking on Himself sin, dying on the cross, destroying the power of sin and hell, raising from the dead to fulness of divine glory.

We cannot take on sin, we sin and it destroys us. We cannot take on death, again it destroys us. We cannot overcome these things and graduate into divinity, as Eastern mysticism proclaims. We can petition to be identified with Christ, what Jesus called being born of the spirit.

It doesn't happen by doing good deeds. It doesn't happen by attending a rite. It doesn't happen by agreeing with doctrine. It doesn't rub off from Dr. Graham or The Pope. It happens by communicating with God, being wooed by Him, and accepting Him. Marriage is a powerful parallel to this aspect of the relationship (see Ephesians 5:25ff for a little more on that).

That is the central mystery of Christianity. God in Christ came to take you to himself.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I always come here for parenting advice.

I'm not looking for parenting advice, I'm interested in seeing how others were raised in an irreligious household.

Anyway, I got far more interesting and useful responses here than I did at the other boards where I posted this question (SDMB and some AOL parenting board).

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Straybow

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT I'm trying to convince Laura to participate in this thread - but no success so far.

But this has been such a friendly chat. What could have scared her off?

* Straybow checks to see if he's been too preachy

The fact that there are 300 responses. She wants me to recap my thoughts and I say "Read the bleepin' thread."

[Rogan Josh]

Straybow:

[lord of the mark]

John T:

First day of new religious school year went well. Princess of the Mark announced in Judaics class that shes a descendant of Rashi (family tradition) , and her teacher decided she would get to do a project on Rashi. Judaics teacher is really nice. (definitely not the brainwashing type) Modern Hebrew teacher is also really nice - Prayerbook Hebrew teacher I dont know, and didnt get much chance to talk with him. POTM announces to me that shes easily the best in her class in both modern and prayerbook Hebrew - she'll need individual attention so she doesnt get bored. In Judaics she admits she's on more even ground.

in related news a pal of ours will be visting on Sunday to help us build a Succah. First time we'll have done so. POTM looks forward, as do I. Judaism - live the experience!!

Shalom.

[Bereta_Eder]

It shouldn't be "bad" to raise Sophia (beautiful name) in an non religious environment.
I think it is imperative though that you dont try to feed your opinions down her throat. when she asks about god tell her what people from both sides think and when she asks you "but daddy what do YOU think" just tell her, without passion or fear

[Spiffor]

LOTM:
Are you a recent convert or what ?

[SlowwHand]

Just buy her some flame-retardent diapers and be done with it.

[Bereta_Eder]

i liked what an ancient philosopher saaid which basically was that there maybe a god, there may not.
however what is imkportant is to strive to better ourselves while here on earth. anthropocentrism.

[SlowwHand]

You sound like Mel Tillis, paiktis.

[Cruddy]

Just a thought I haven't seen anybody else raise...

I see nothing wrong with raising a child to have some sort of spiritual awareness.

I'm not advocating lots of slavish dogma, the ritual rejection of Satan or the stoning of the devil...

I just think it might help with getting over the idea of right and wrong.

Raising a child without religion of ANY sort might fall into that trap.

[Bereta_Eder]

who's mel tillis?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
Are you a recent convert or what ?

No - you mean first time building a succah? Certain recent real estate changes made that possible.

[Bereta_Eder]

but cruddy, since when does religion equates moral intelligence?

[SlowwHand]

A singer who stutters when he talks.

[Bereta_Eder]

and i thought he was an anthropocentrist too

[Ben Kenobi]

I said that they could also have wanted to stone him because he was a troublemaker who was stirring up anti-Pharisee sentiment.

Fair enough. Boris, it's not that I don't get what you are saying, I'm not sure where you are coming from, so I have to close off some avenues first. This is a very good point, since Jesus did call the Pharisees 'white sepulchres'.

However, we are privileged to have the account of Jesus' trial. What charges do they lay against Jesus?

John 19:7

"The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

Again, and the passage I alluded to earlier,

John 8:58-59

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

It seems clear to me from these passages that the crime that merited stoning was blasphemy, and not mere criticism of the Pharisees.

Before I rebut Boris further...

JohnT: Are we mangling your thread?

[JohnT]

The only thread of mine in 4+ years to go over 150 posts? Not at all, my friend.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
However, we are privileged to have the account of Jesus' trial. What charges do they lay against Jesus?

Is this a transcript from the trial? Was it written by a witness to the events? What historical substantiation is there for this trial? What do really know about what the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus for, if they indeed even wanted to stone him, if indeed he was ever there?

Since we're talking about the wholesale rejection of Jesus's claims to divinity, citing a Biblical passage wherein he makes claims to divinity is rather circular. The whole reason the objection is raised to his divinity is the belief that later adherents to Christianity invented and falsified the claims to give credence to their belief. This also must be examined in the light of how much weight we give to Paul's veracity.

[Straybow]

JohnT, you know what they say:

Thread length is just an attempt to compensate for lack of a sports car.

[st_swithin]

Time to buy a blue Jaguar, huh?

[Alexander's Horse]

I thought I made another silly comment on this thread but I was mistaken.

[JohnT]

Even your jokes are full of wisdom, AH.

[Ben Kenobi]

citing a Biblical passage wherein he makes claims to divinity is rather circular.

I believe I asked this question in my last post...

Why should we accept the moral teachings in the bible as authoritative and not the rest?

I'm not going to rebut anything else unless you answer this question first.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Straybow
* Straybow realizes he didn't post a response 'cos Settler2 was down

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT "The central mystery of Christianity isn't some avataristic manifestation supplied as a humanistic example or social tool. " So what is the central mystery?

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse It's still going

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker Actually, if this EXACT THING was taught as a core priniciple of Christianity, it would be a much cooler religion.

Yes, it is "still going," and that is what it taught in many churches. And it is way cool!

The Incarnation is practical—as a whole person the Son became a human being. This was not to provide an example of what a human could be, as though by some effort you or I could follow and become what He is.

Towards man, He delivered a message: that He was doing God's will in making a way for us where we fall short. Everything else was directed towards God: taking on Himself sin, dying on the cross, destroying the power of sin and hell, raising from the dead to fulness of divine glory.

We cannot take on sin, we sin and it destroys us. We cannot take on death, again it destroys us. We cannot overcome these things and graduate into divinity, as Eastern mysticism proclaims. We can petition to be identified with Christ, what Jesus called being born of the spirit.

It doesn't happen by doing good deeds. It doesn't happen by attending a rite. It doesn't happen by agreeing with doctrine. It doesn't rub off from Dr. Graham or The Pope. It happens by communicating with God, being wooed by Him, and accepting Him. Marriage is a powerful parallel to this aspect of the relationship (see Ephesians 5:25ff for a little more on that).

That is the central mystery of Christianity. God in Christ came to take you to himself.

bah that's not the mystery

if it was a mystery you wouldn't be able to explain it

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
Are you a recent convert or what ?

or is it my enthusiasm for Judaism as a way of life? Well that owes something to this thread Few things inspire me with an appreciation for Judaism like an atheist/christian debate like this - an extended, generally joyless, expolaration of brainwashing, bitterness, resurrection, etc. Makes me appreciate a religion, which, while certainly intellectual enough, is very much a religion of the whole person, not just the mind. All this discussion of not giving a child a "religious education" so she can make up her own MIND later - reminds me of my own religious education, long ago in Brooklyn, in a Progressive Synagogue in an Orthodox neighborhood. I dont remember brainwashing or sophisticated arguments - i remember the singing, the light streaming through the windows, the taste of hamentaschen, the aroma of challah, the pride I had when i chanted the torah blessings in a loud clear voice in front of the whole congregation. I cant imagine putting that off to adulthood. The entire discussion seems based on an assumption that religion lives in the frontal cortex of the brain, that this is a question of faith versus reason - as the West has debated for the last 300 years or so - not a question of BEING - before we think, we ARE. We seem to ignore what philosophy has struggled with since Hegel - the relationship of THOUGHT and BEING.

You see Spif, my Judaism is very much influenced by the thought of Buber and Rosenzweig - whose thought, In the existentialist tradition, goes beyond thought, and examines the preconditions of thought.