<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 31 2005, 09:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 31 2005, 09:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Blammo8+May 31 2005, 06:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Blammo8 @ May 31 2005, 06:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [<!--QuoteBegin-Depot @ May 31 2005+ 06:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ May 31 2005 @ 06:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Perhaps a definition of "better off" is in order. Let's let the author tell us exactly what he meant by this.
I could easily answer yes on the pretense that "better off" means I'm going to heaven when I die. If you have no faith, you're not going there. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that's how it works I don't want to go to heaven. If God is truly the embodiment of good he will let anyone into heaven with a good hart because that's the whole point. I know I'm a good person, I respect and wish the best for anyone who does that as well for all other people and animals. So I won't go to heaven because I don't believe in God? why? Why am I not as good as someone who believes in god? Tell me that. That's like saying I will deny you eternal happieness because you don't like me. Maybe he has good reasons for not liking me? Well that doesn't stop me from granting him eternal happieness, if he's a good person. I also have a good reason for not believing in God. There's no proof, simple as that. (Don't question this proof stuff cause that's way off topic) If he doesn't want me in heaven because I never believed in him my entire life that makes me a better person than God because I wouldn't refuse him. And who can be a better person than God himself? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *goes on tangent*
Blammo, you are confused about how Christianity works. It's not that those who believe in God are somehow better than those who don't, and therefore can get into heaven--the basic idea is that <i>none of us</i> is as good as God, and being as good as God is the standard. It only takes one sin for you to fall short of that standard, and not be able to reach heaven.
So since <i>no one</i> can reach heaven on their own, God offered us a loophole...rather than having to pay the price to get there on our own, he offered to pay the price for us, and let us in for free. He <i>wants</i> you to be there...yes, even you who don't believe in him. The only thing you have to do is accept his free offer. But if you don't believe he exists, it's rather difficult to accept his free offer.
(Note--this is not intended to be an argument for Chrisitianity's truth, merely to clear up a fairly important misunderstanding) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> QFT! Bravo Cxwf. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+May 31 2005, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ May 31 2005, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Faith in a religion generally means respect for the religion's moral values. If they aren't capable of respect, it also means they fear defying the Gods of said religion. Seeing as it's so rare these days for children to choose their parents as their role models, as opposed to someone on TV, having God on your side at least makes them more receptive to your position. Even if they later reject the religion as teenagers/adults, they will remember the moral values they chose to follow, even if it was out of fear of going to Hell.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If a parent can't discipline his/her child, then a vague threat of God isn't going to do much, either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it's a vague threat, then clearly that child doesn't have faith in the religion. However, scaring children is incredibly easy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+May 31 2005, 09:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ May 31 2005, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 31 2005, 09:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 31 2005, 09:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd also like to point out your "case" is based on nothing.
Especially if you cite the bible as your only source for morals, you might want to re-read it. It is not a very good book for only basing your morals on.
*edit* <!--QuoteBegin-Depot+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Of course my parents got their morals from their belief in God, and from the Bible and the Ten Commandments, where all Christians get their morals from. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right there... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>Directly and solely?</b> Where does it say that? Of course their faith had a major influence on their morals, but no one INCLUDING ME said that was their ONLY influence. And YOU telling someone to re-read the bible? That's a hoot ... Just read the Ten Commandments, that'll give you some good guidance in reference to morals. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And I already noted why I'm better off as the author asked. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In a formal discussion, if you do not hedge your words, your position will be taken as if you were speaking an absolute.
In this case, however, it doesn't really matter. The fact remains that, without the Bible, your parents would probably have been exactly the same when it came to their morals, and they would have raised you exactly the same way. Unless, as I have already said, you believe that Christianity "saved" them from their own innate depravities. I don't like making such statements, but you've pretty much brought it upon yourself by claiming that they got their morals from the Bible. They either had their set of morals, which Christianity then strengthened, or Christianity impressed their own morals on them. I hope the latter statement is not the truth.
Oh, and you do NOT want to start discussing the Bible with Cyndane. Just giver her a push, she'll find inconsistencies and mistranslations in it like no other.
If you just want to look at the Ten Commandments..."Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, house, etc"? What is that? You can't consciously control what you think; how can simply thinking about how you wish you had xx object that your neighbor has be a sin? You can't tell me you've never been envious in your life, and you also can't tell me you've always felt <u>sorry</u> for being envious.
There, the Ten Commandments are flawed. It's really not that hard. The Bible's a guidebook; use it as such, because it's hardly infallible. Heck, it's not even infallible when you just compare passages from different parts of the Bible.
The Bible is good reading material, give it a try. And my parent's faith guided them in making wise decisions in my upbringing. I am a better person for it. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The fact that it's "good reading material" doesn't changed the fact that it's very flawed.
And FYI, I'm Catholic (recently confirmed, ty) and Cyndane...I don't know why, but she basically studies religious texts for fun, or work, or something. She's probably read the Bible more than you have, and definitely in more languages. Always wise to know who you're talking to before acting condescending; age, like gender, is optional on the Internet. Much like real life, however, age does not always give experience.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+May 31 2005, 10:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ May 31 2005, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The fact that it's "good reading material" doesn't changed the fact that it's very flawed.
And FYI, I'm Catholic (recently confirmed, ty) and Cyndane...I don't know why, but she basically studies religious texts for fun, or work, or something. She's probably read the Bible more than you have, and definitely in more languages. Always wise to know who you're talking to before acting condescending; age, like gender, is optional on the Internet. Much like real life, however, age does not always give experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b> Always wise to know who you're talking to before acting condescending; age, like gender, is optional on the Internet.</b> Bravo. Did you see this Cyndane?
Actually, the first (But not only) definition I would equate "better off" with would be with interaction with the world. Skills in the environment, manner, morals, love, hate, preferences, marriage, respect, etc.
A second could be their religion's objective place of wanting to be I guess.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 31 2005, 09:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 31 2005, 09:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Obviously that isn't true Goldwin, it is all dependant upon the parents, as Sky, myself, and Sidnely have pointed out.
No one is better or worse off in a religious environment then any other. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I believe that is what we here are discussing about. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> And I respect your claim along with some others about it having no difference, where I believe it has to have some effect upon the child, logically thinking.
Actually if one were to be brought up in the strict religious household it would be very bad for that child. Whether it be Muslim, Christianity, Hinduism, and etc.
All of those religions teach a close minded view of the world, which I'm sure you can agree with especially if they are fundamentalists.
Your logic is flawed because it has no basis for its conclusion.
Just so we're clear, being religious and in an organized religion is VERY different. Organized religion will tell you how to pursue your faith, and if you are truly a member of say Catholocism, you are ordered what to believe in that case by ultimately the Pope, who claims to interpret God's will. Manipulating someone to have the correct faith is a statement that defeats itself: one must find faith on his/her own, because if it's forced upon him/her and he/she accepts it, then he really has no true faith at all in his religion since he/she will change. This would make you <i>worse off</i> with the example of Catholocism (see: burnt down abortion clinics, a van with a custom paint job depicting an aborted fetus while the van drives around Wrigley Field in Chicago - true story) because your faith is tainted and able to be manipulated. This is also very dangerous, need I bring up how Hitler truly thought what he was doing was Divine will. Again, inherently worse off in that respect, meaning you can't say organized religion (or at least Catholocism) is inherently purely good.
Being religious means you decide things for yourself, and time will test how true you stick to your faith and yourself. If you're not religious, it is the same except replace "faith" with "morals". For example I am completely unpracticing of religion, but I am highly moralistic. Morals and religion are not necessarily always hand in hand.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 31 2005, 10:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 31 2005, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh I saw it just fine Depot, and you really don't want to open that can of worms as Sky has pointed out and that is very good advice.
Personally your "book" is nothing to myself and many others, but that doesn't make you "better off" at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It was good advice, you need to heed it.
In my opinion, it is not the presence of religion that improves or degrades the life of a depeloping child, but how it is handled. A proper upbringing not only instills knowledge, but also proficiency in using ones own judgement. This means that the child who is better off, is the one who can, when faced with a decision, decide "What do I believe is the right course of action?" and then reconcile that decision with their repository of past experiences (this is where religion fits in) to come to a conclusion as to the best course of action. On the other hand, when one is faced with a situation and turns straight to their religion, bypassing their own judgement, they are actively degrading their own life.
Religion is a tool to guide oneself in making proper judgement. As soon as it is used as a replacement for ones own judgement, it becomes dangerous.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 31 2005, 11:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 31 2005, 11:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh you mean the talking down to you because you don't know what you are talking about.
I would suggest probably reading your "morals" book, before you claim it is a good book to base "morals" off of. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I mean your constant gramattical corrections and criticizing of others when you yourself suffer from spelling issues or dylexia. I mean your condescending ways when you say things are this way "because you say so". I mean when you're wrong and won't admit it. All of the above. Any of the above. If the shoe fits wear it. Hell, I'll help you slip it on.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 31 2005, 11:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 31 2005, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I may not have perfect spelling, grammar is a nother matter completely, nor do I have dylexia. Just because english is NOT my first language doesn't mean I am impervious to errors.
I only correct grammar when I deem it necessary, in addition, I do not correct in this forum, for not everyone can have perfect grammar. Your attempts to correct me have been on minor spelling mistakes, which could easily be typos, you never bothered to ask.
Your understanding of said book you "read" proves you didn't read it. Skimming sections does not constitute reading.
In addition, unless you are able to read greek/hebrew, you haven't read the bible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've read the Bible, and you've no right to tell me or anyone else they haven't done so. <b>Again</b>, just because you say it isn't so, doesn't mean it isn't so.
I think we are getting side tracked here, from discussing, towards arguing.
Why do I think this? Because rational discussion points are being swept away in your tides of increasingly heated dialog. Cool it you two, or the rest of us wont be able to engage in rational discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin-pieceofsoap+May 31 2005, 10:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pieceofsoap @ May 31 2005, 10:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In my opinion, it is not the presence of religion that improves or degrades the life of a depeloping child, but how it is handled. A proper upbringing not only instills knowledge, but also proficiency in using ones own judgement. This means that the child who is better off, is the one who can, when faced with a decision, decide "What do I believe is the right course of action?" and then reconcile that decision with their repository of past experiences (this is where religion fits in) to come to a conclusion as to the best course of action. On the other hand, when one is faced with a situation and turns straight to their religion, bypassing their own judgement, they are actively degrading their own life.
Religion is a tool to guide oneself in making proper judgement. As soon as it is used as a replacement for ones own judgement, it becomes dangerous. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I like the way you interpet the "better off" statement, as it does seem to fit this very well, in how religion aids in one's judgement for what may be right, instead of just jumping to the religious beliefs right away.
In continuation of my previous post, I think what it comes down to, is the use with which the knowledge one gains in ones upbringing, is put to. Religion can be an excellent guideline, but when used as a replacement for ones better judgement, it can become hazardous. For example:
Kid A is faced with a situation. He might ask: "What would Jesus do?" "What would Mohammed do?" "What would Krishna do?" "What would Conan the Barbarian do?"
or the notoriously hazardous: "What would God do?"
when he should be asking: "What would <b>I</b> do? What is in <b>my</b> best interests?" Religion, if utilized properly, strengthens ones ability to gauge what is in ones best interest.
Regardless of the details of the religion, when used as a crutch, religion is dangerous.
<!--QuoteBegin-pieceofsoap+May 31 2005, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pieceofsoap @ May 31 2005, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Kid A is faced with a situation. He might ask: "What would Conan the Barbarian do?"
or the notoriously hazardous: "What would God do?"
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Now that you mention it...God is an awful lot like Conan the Barbarian...
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+May 31 2005, 11:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ May 31 2005, 11:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-pieceofsoap+May 31 2005, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pieceofsoap @ May 31 2005, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Kid A is faced with a situation. He might ask: "What would Conan the Barbarian do?"
or the notoriously hazardous: "What would God do?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now that you mention it...God is an awful lot like Conan the Barbarian... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm, the point I was trying to make was that it doesnt matter what ideology you follow, if you use it improperly you get problems...
"What would God do?" "Well, he would make the Egyptians suffer 10 plagues, and then punt the Jews into the desert for a few decades."
Hmm, I do see how you could make the Conan the Barbarian correlation though.
<!--QuoteBegin-pieceofsoap+May 31 2005, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pieceofsoap @ May 31 2005, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Kid A is faced with a situation. He might ask: "What would Jesus do?" "What would Mohammed do?" "What would Krishna do?" "What would Conan the Barbarian do?"
or the notoriously hazardous: "What would God do?"
when he should be asking: "What would <b>I</b> do? What is in <b>my</b> best interests?" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait...since when do we <i>want</i> the kid thinking only of his own best interests? Don't we usually consider it a good thing to have respect for other's best interests as well?
Example--Kid A loses his wallet. Kid B finds it. There is no way Kid A will ever find out that Kid B has his wallet now---its is Kid B's best interests to just keep it, and the money in it. But if Kid B returns the wallet to Kid A, don't we normally call that a good thing?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 31 2005, 11:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 31 2005, 11:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually I do, because you haven't.
If you have, what translation did you read?
Oh wait.. it was translated into english... guess what that means, you lost most of the meaning. Considering neither ancient greek(modern greek is a different story) nor hebrew can be transliterated into english. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, you're reverting to the very condescending ways that sky mentioned. Your statement not only is meaningless, it's insulting to Christians.
Now, I know I'm kinda behind in stating this, but where does it say that those with no religion have no morals, and no sense of right?
I am agnostic, and I know many who are atheist, agnostic, and also religious in varying degrees. Every person I know has morals, some to a greater extent, and some to a lesser. I happen to have some of the strictest morals I know.
I was brought up in a home without any reference to any religion whatsoever. So where does this come from? This belief that those who don't grow up with a religion have no morals?
Comments
Perhaps a definition of "better off" is in order. Let's let the author tell us exactly what he meant by this.
I could easily answer yes on the pretense that "better off" means I'm going to heaven when I die. If you have no faith, you're not going there. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that's how it works I don't want to go to heaven. If God is truly the embodiment of good he will let anyone into heaven with a good hart because that's the whole point. I know I'm a good person, I respect and wish the best for anyone who does that as well for all other people and animals. So I won't go to heaven because I don't believe in God? why? Why am I not as good as someone who believes in god? Tell me that. That's like saying I will deny you eternal happieness because you don't like me. Maybe he has good reasons for not liking me? Well that doesn't stop me from granting him eternal happieness, if he's a good person. I also have a good reason for not believing in God. There's no proof, simple as that. (Don't question this proof stuff cause that's way off topic) If he doesn't want me in heaven because I never believed in him my entire life that makes me a better person than God because I wouldn't refuse him. And who can be a better person than God himself? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*goes on tangent*
Blammo, you are confused about how Christianity works. It's not that those who believe in God are somehow better than those who don't, and therefore can get into heaven--the basic idea is that <i>none of us</i> is as good as God, and being as good as God is the standard. It only takes one sin for you to fall short of that standard, and not be able to reach heaven.
So since <i>no one</i> can reach heaven on their own, God offered us a loophole...rather than having to pay the price to get there on our own, he offered to pay the price for us, and let us in for free. He <i>wants</i> you to be there...yes, even you who don't believe in him. The only thing you have to do is accept his free offer. But if you don't believe he exists, it's rather difficult to accept his free offer.
(Note--this is not intended to be an argument for Chrisitianity's truth, merely to clear up a fairly important misunderstanding) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT! Bravo Cxwf. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If a parent can't discipline his/her child, then a vague threat of God isn't going to do much, either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it's a vague threat, then clearly that child doesn't have faith in the religion. However, scaring children is incredibly easy.
Especially if you cite the bible as your only source for morals, you might want to re-read it. It is not a very good book for only basing your morals on.
*edit*
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Of course my parents got their morals from their belief in God, and from the Bible and the Ten Commandments, where all Christians get their morals from.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right there... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Directly and solely?</b> Where does it say that? Of course their faith had a major influence on their morals, but no one INCLUDING ME said that was their ONLY influence. And YOU telling someone to re-read the bible? That's a hoot ... Just read the Ten Commandments, that'll give you some good guidance in reference to morals. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And I already noted why I'm better off as the author asked. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a formal discussion, if you do not hedge your words, your position will be taken as if you were speaking an absolute.
In this case, however, it doesn't really matter. The fact remains that, without the Bible, your parents would probably have been exactly the same when it came to their morals, and they would have raised you exactly the same way. Unless, as I have already said, you believe that Christianity "saved" them from their own innate depravities. I don't like making such statements, but you've pretty much brought it upon yourself by claiming that they got their morals from the Bible. They either had their set of morals, which Christianity then strengthened, or Christianity impressed their own morals on them. I hope the latter statement is not the truth.
Oh, and you do NOT want to start discussing the Bible with Cyndane. Just giver her a push, she'll find inconsistencies and mistranslations in it like no other.
If you just want to look at the Ten Commandments..."Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, house, etc"? What is that? You can't consciously control what you think; how can simply thinking about how you wish you had xx object that your neighbor has be a sin? You can't tell me you've never been envious in your life, and you also can't tell me you've always felt <u>sorry</u> for being envious.
There, the Ten Commandments are flawed. It's really not that hard. The Bible's a guidebook; use it as such, because it's hardly infallible. Heck, it's not even infallible when you just compare passages from different parts of the Bible.
And FYI, I'm Catholic (recently confirmed, ty) and Cyndane...I don't know why, but she basically studies religious texts for fun, or work, or something. She's probably read the Bible more than you have, and definitely in more languages. Always wise to know who you're talking to before acting condescending; age, like gender, is optional on the Internet. Much like real life, however, age does not always give experience.
And FYI, I'm Catholic (recently confirmed, ty) and Cyndane...I don't know why, but she basically studies religious texts for fun, or work, or something. She's probably read the Bible more than you have, and definitely in more languages. Always wise to know who you're talking to before acting condescending; age, like gender, is optional on the Internet. Much like real life, however, age does not always give experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b> Always wise to know who you're talking to before acting condescending; age, like gender, is optional on the Internet.</b> Bravo. Did you see this Cyndane?
Actually, the first (But not only) definition I would equate "better off" with would be with interaction with the world. Skills in the environment, manner, morals, love, hate, preferences, marriage, respect, etc.
A second could be their religion's objective place of wanting to be I guess.
But I want to stick with the first.
No one is better or worse off in a religious environment then any other.
No one is better or worse off in a religious environment then any other. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I believe that is what we here are discussing about. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> And I respect your claim along with some others about it having no difference, where I believe it has to have some effect upon the child, logically thinking.
All of those religions teach a close minded view of the world, which I'm sure you can agree with especially if they are fundamentalists.
Your logic is flawed because it has no basis for its conclusion.
Being religious means you decide things for yourself, and time will test how true you stick to your faith and yourself. If you're not religious, it is the same except replace "faith" with "morals". For example I am completely unpracticing of religion, but I am highly moralistic. Morals and religion are not necessarily always hand in hand.
Personally your "book" is nothing to myself and many others, but that doesn't make you "better off" at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was good advice, you need to heed it.
Religion is a tool to guide oneself in making proper judgement. As soon as it is used as a replacement for ones own judgement, it becomes dangerous.
I would suggest probably reading your "morals" book, before you claim it is a good book to base "morals" off of. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I mean your constant gramattical corrections and criticizing of others when you yourself suffer from spelling issues or dylexia. I mean your condescending ways when you say things are this way "because you say so". I mean when you're wrong and won't admit it. All of the above. Any of the above. If the shoe fits wear it. Hell, I'll help you slip it on.
And I've read the book, several times.
I only correct grammar when I deem it necessary, in addition, I do not correct in this forum, for not everyone can have perfect grammar. Your attempts to correct me have been on minor spelling mistakes, which could easily be typos, you never bothered to ask.
Your understanding of said book you "read" proves you didn't read it. Skimming sections does not constitute reading.
In addition, unless you are able to read greek/hebrew, you haven't read the bible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've read the Bible, and you've no right to tell me or anyone else they haven't done so. <b>Again</b>, just because you say it isn't so, doesn't mean it isn't so.
Why do I think this? Because rational discussion points are being swept away in your tides of increasingly heated dialog. Cool it you two, or the rest of us wont be able to engage in rational discussion.
Anyway, the children are no better off nor worse. :-)
Religion is a tool to guide oneself in making proper judgement. As soon as it is used as a replacement for ones own judgement, it becomes dangerous. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like the way you interpet the "better off" statement, as it does seem to fit this very well, in how religion aids in one's judgement for what may be right, instead of just jumping to the religious beliefs right away.
In continuation of my previous post, I think what it comes down to, is the use with which the knowledge one gains in ones upbringing, is put to. Religion can be an excellent guideline, but when used as a replacement for ones better judgement, it can become hazardous. For example:
Kid A is faced with a situation. He might ask:
"What would Jesus do?"
"What would Mohammed do?"
"What would Krishna do?"
"What would Conan the Barbarian do?"
or the notoriously hazardous:
"What would God do?"
when he should be asking:
"What would <b>I</b> do? What is in <b>my</b> best interests?"
Religion, if utilized properly, strengthens ones ability to gauge what is in ones best interest.
Regardless of the details of the religion, when used as a crutch, religion is dangerous.
"What would Conan the Barbarian do?"
or the notoriously hazardous:
"What would God do?"
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that you mention it...God is an awful lot like Conan the Barbarian...
"What would Conan the Barbarian do?"
or the notoriously hazardous:
"What would God do?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that you mention it...God is an awful lot like Conan the Barbarian... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, the point I was trying to make was that it doesnt matter what ideology you follow, if you use it improperly you get problems...
"What would God do?"
"Well, he would make the Egyptians suffer 10 plagues, and then punt the Jews into the desert for a few decades."
Hmm, I do see how you could make the Conan the Barbarian correlation though.
"What would Jesus do?"
"What would Mohammed do?"
"What would Krishna do?"
"What would Conan the Barbarian do?"
or the notoriously hazardous:
"What would God do?"
when he should be asking:
"What would <b>I</b> do? What is in <b>my</b> best interests?" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait...since when do we <i>want</i> the kid thinking only of his own best interests? Don't we usually consider it a good thing to have respect for other's best interests as well?
Example--Kid A loses his wallet. Kid B finds it. There is no way Kid A will ever find out that Kid B has his wallet now---its is Kid B's best interests to just keep it, and the money in it. But if Kid B returns the wallet to Kid A, don't we normally call that a good thing?
If you have, what translation did you read?
Oh wait.. it was translated into english... guess what that means, you lost most of the meaning. Considering neither ancient greek(modern greek is a different story) nor hebrew can be transliterated into english. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, you're reverting to the very condescending ways that sky mentioned. Your statement not only is meaningless, it's insulting to Christians.
I am agnostic, and I know many who are atheist, agnostic, and also religious in varying degrees. Every person I know has morals, some to a greater extent, and some to a lesser. I happen to have some of the strictest morals I know.
I was brought up in a home without any reference to any religion whatsoever. So where does this come from? This belief that those who don't grow up with a religion have no morals?