I don't think there's anything wrong with going to church and it certainly doesn't stem from a lack of parenting abilities.
You guys aren't going to counter fngr's bullshit statements by pulling equally bullshit statements from the other side.
[Religion] "I want my kids to decide for themselves"
- Thread starter FngrBANG
- Start date
I don't think there's anything wrong with going to church and it certainly doesn't stem from a lack of parenting abilities.
You guys aren't going to counter fngr's bullshit statements by pulling equally bullshit statements from the other side.
You're teaching your children that magic is real.
I'm teaching my children shit since they're locked up in my testicles right now.
What would you like me to say? Some insanely vague blanket statement that universally rules out why church is bad for all the people that go?
Normal people don't go to church, atleast not where I live. And real people of faith don't need to prove it by making the attendance list every sunday.
Was this post supposed to be ironic?
Don't get me wrong, I'm an agnostic and will likely raise my children agnostic (unless if the mother is religious, then we'll see) but I don't subscribe to the idea that religion is some great evil that is dragging society down. I don't believe it needs to be abolished and I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to raise your children with your religious beliefs. There's nothing wrong with taking your children to church just as there is nothing wrong with not taking them.
However, say your children are more moral than mine because they were raised with religion and I will likely disagree with you. Just as I will disagree with someone that says their children raised without religion are automatically more moral than those of religious families.
However, say your children are more moral than mine because they were raised with religion and I will likely disagree with you. Just as I will disagree with someone that says their children raised without religion are automatically more moral than those of religious families.
from your fine example, i suppose
The Prowler
Veteran XX
In the example I gave, yes. Respect for your fellow human being is a universal moral.
Not at all. A universal moral is still a universal moral. Those that do not follow it are doing wrong by its standard. It doesn't mean it no longer applies.
Again, a universal moral is not subject to those who choose to live by it, rather those who exist are subject to it. They are either living by it or against it. A societal moral would fall if a society chose not to practice it. A universal moral does not.
Because I examine the morals from my own point of reference. There are quite a few that match up with what I believe. Respect, peace, and tolerance to name a few. The same ends are reached by different means.
I have to clarify though that I do not agree with the means by which they are reached, and there are countless ends I take issue with as well. That still does not change the point that some ethical truths are able to be derived from religion.
Last edited:
|Blitzkrieg|
Veteran XX
Probably the most powerful verses to contend your statement.
Romans 3:21
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans is such an encouraging chapter.
Last edited:
High Fidelity
Veteran-4
The need for religion manifests itself as a result of the low self-esteem that the general population has. Those who need religion are those who are either too scared or too insecure (not to mention too guilty) to deal with their challenges on their own.
For instance, take the father who runs out on his wife and kids. Some people would call this man a coward, and they would be right. Definitely, there would be the people who would say that had deadbeat fathers Jesus in their hearts, or had they spoken to the Lord for strength they would be less likely to leave. But what makes him less of a coward for turning to a spiritual being rather than running away? Nothing. It's merely a question of environment. "Which is more acceptable?" True, staying is the correct moral choice. But couldn't someone say he is a coward for not abandoning his family for something else that he values more?
The real problem here is religion: that force that has told us from birth that to get married at a young age and begin procreating is the right thing to do. Perhaps had he not been so quick to settle down (undoubtedly pressured by an internal feeling that he has been conditioned to receive even without understanding why he should), he could have lived with his independence a little longer, and then settled down later in life.
So we come back to the beginning of it all. We say that morals are given to us by religion, but the outdated belief systems are often the reason those morals are defied.
For instance, take the father who runs out on his wife and kids. Some people would call this man a coward, and they would be right. Definitely, there would be the people who would say that had deadbeat fathers Jesus in their hearts, or had they spoken to the Lord for strength they would be less likely to leave. But what makes him less of a coward for turning to a spiritual being rather than running away? Nothing. It's merely a question of environment. "Which is more acceptable?" True, staying is the correct moral choice. But couldn't someone say he is a coward for not abandoning his family for something else that he values more?
The real problem here is religion: that force that has told us from birth that to get married at a young age and begin procreating is the right thing to do. Perhaps had he not been so quick to settle down (undoubtedly pressured by an internal feeling that he has been conditioned to receive even without understanding why he should), he could have lived with his independence a little longer, and then settled down later in life.
So we come back to the beginning of it all. We say that morals are given to us by religion, but the outdated belief systems are often the reason those morals are defied.
