NationStates Jolt Archive

For those who don't know I'm a white covert to the Sikh religion.
In our faith we have a document called the Rehat Maryada, which is an agreed code of conduct outlinning, dress code, do's and don'ts and just what a Sikh is and isn't, etc..

Part of this states that a Sikh should marry a Sikh, 'll not bore you with the Sikhs view on just what marriage is, but as far as I can see this is there soley to ensure the birth of lots of little Sikhs.

It is also something that I totaly disagree with and have many a umm discusion with my bretheren.

So my question is, does it matter if your offspring do not share the same faith as you, even if it means like my own kids they end up being *gasp* atheists?

I say no, it matters not at all. Isn't ones relationship with God(if you have such a thing) between yourself and God?

What do others of faith say?

I always feel that many such restrictions, issued by whatever faith at hand, are irrelevant (at least in today's times) to what the belief should be about.

I also think that faiths should not be as strictly put into little boxes as they usually come across with me - it is my opinion that this "If you want to be a Jew/Sikh/Buddhist, you will have to succumb to all our laws, including not eating pork/only marrying another Sikh/no alcohol, or you do not get to be a Jew/Sikh/Buddhist!" crap you hear everywhere is not adequate (anymore). As far as I'm concerned, you get to pick and choose whatever feels the best way to serve what you have taken to be your faith/God/whatever, and use whatever label you feel conveys your so-chosen spiritual identity best.

That said, I do not fully understand most people's need to label themselves in such a way, either. I often hear "Yes, I'm a Catholic.. well, I don't believe in papal fallacy or transubstantiation, but still!" or "I'm a Buddhist! Well, okay, I do smoke pot and drink, and I don't think I believe in reincarnation, but still!" and wonder why. Why not say something like "I don't exactly follow one major religious group, but for my spiritual concept, [x y z] are most important" or something along those lines - and if someone is interested, they can go into detail?

I always feel that many such restrictions, issued by whatever faith at hand, are irrelevant (at least in today's times) to what the belief should be about.

I also think that faiths should not be as strictly put into little boxes as they usually come across with me - it is my opinion that this "If you want to be a Jew/Sikh/Buddhist, you will have to succumb to all our laws, including not eating pork/only marrying another Sikh/no alcohol, or you do not get to be a Jew/Sikh/Buddhist!" crap you hear everywhere is not adequate (anymore). As far as I'm concerned, you get to pick and choose whatever feels the best way to serve what you have taken to be your faith/God/whatever, and use whatever label you feel conveys your so-chosen spiritual identity best.

Which nicely brings up another connected point. Is faith based dogma out of touch with our world now? Should religious dogma keep pace with the changes in our world?

If it does can it then be argued to be a false relgion? Or at least not divenly inspired?

What do others of faith say?
If you're sikhing answers, it's often best to look within yourself for wisdom.

If you're sikhing answers, it's often best to look within yourself for wisdom.

Bwahahaha. No I have the answers I'm comfatable with, I just wana know what others thing. You know discussion forum an all that!:D

It depends on how strictly you want to adhere to your faith, and how much that particular restriction means to your understanding of your faith.

In other words, how badly do you want your kids to be able to carry knives to school?

I think kids will eventually make up their own minds, as they should. It's their life, not yours.

That's one of the reasons I'm not too concerned about parents trying to teach their faiths to their offspring : chances are the kids will stick with it as long as they live with their parents, and drop it once they move out. It's a pattern I've seen many, many times now.

I'd be rather worried, actually, if my kids grew up to believe the exact same things I believe.

Bwahahaha. No I have the answers I'm comfatable with, I just wana know what others thing. You know discussion forum an all that!:D
How's your family kirpan with it all?

Which nicely brings up another connected point. Is faith based dogma out of touch with our world now?
I don't think we need to generalize ALL "faith based dogma".

Now I need to be clear about my background thoughts on this for my next answers, for "intellectual honesty", I guess: I personally believe that most, if not all, faith-based dogma and rules have been man-made, have grown out of the respective society's prior beliefs, circumstances, necessities, power relations etc. In that sense, I believe that those precise and practical rules are not divine, and not part of the spiritual core and necessity of any faith.

That said: Yes, (most) societies the faiths came from have changed dramatically, and as such the roots, basis and necessities for the dogmas have changed, and the "old" dogma is often very much out of touch.

Should religious dogma keep pace with the changes in our world?

Actually, it is my opinion that religions ought to rather just drop dogmatic elements, because, as said above, I do not consider them to be a spiritual element. I recognise the need for them back in teh days when religion was the main, if not even only, institution that brought order into everyday life, but in today's times, I think religions ought to scale back to their spiritual components and drop the prescriptive social order/laws ones, whose domain has long shifted.

If it does can it then be argued to be a false relgion? Or at least not divenly inspired?
As above: No, because the dogma is not spiritual in nature, but a pragmatic, man-made add-on that was create din line with the prgamatic, practical function(s) that churches and religions had to (also) take on in the days religions and their dogma emerged.

It depends on how strictly you want to adhere to your faith, and how much that particular restriction means to your understanding of your faith.

In other words, how badly do you want your kids to be able to carry knives to school?

I want my kids to make up their own minds about all sorts of stuff, it really don't bother me at all if they do not share my faith.

How's your family kirpan with it all?

Heh my family don't own a kirpan, I do which I wear to gurdwara, but nowhere else.

Heh my family don't own a kirpan, I do which I wear to gurdwara, but nowhere else.
My puns fall on deaf ears again :(

I don't think we need to generalize ALL "faith based dogma".

Now I need to be clear about my background thoughts on this for my next answers, for "intellectual honesty
<snip>

And a fuller answer I couldn't have asked for.

Yeah I agree, my thoughts on this run along the same lines.

My puns fall on deaf ears again :(

Sorry jus' didn't get it. Umm was your use of the word kirpan, meant to sound a little like copein'?

Sorry jus' didn't get it. Umm was your use of the word kirpan, meant to sound a little like copein'?
Correct :D

I think kids will eventually make up their own minds, as they should. It's their life, not yours.

That's one of the reasons I'm not too concerned about parents trying to teach their faiths to their offspring : chances are the kids will stick with it as long as they live with their parents, and drop it once they move out. It's a pattern I've seen many, many times now.

I'd be rather worried, actually, if my kids grew up to believe the exact same things I believe.

Is that going to be true for every family though? I'm not sure that it is.

Correct :D

Ahhhh, I see.:D

I want my kids to make up their own minds about all sorts of stuff, it really don't bother me at all if they do not share my faith.

Then I suppose you agree that religious strictures shouldn't supersede common sense and your own sense of what's right.

Bob Baer had an anecdote in his book about a Hindu employee who tried to argue that he had a First Amendment right to sleep with his mother and sister, since there weren't any women from his caste around. Please don't do that.

Is that going to be true for every family though? I'm not sure that it is.

No, many parents find it hard to cope with their children turning out to be individuals rather than copies of themselves.

Have a look at families where you know two or more generations ;)

So my question is, does it matter if your offspring do not share the same faith as you, even if it means like my own kids they end up being *gasp* atheists?

Of course it matters - it means their worldview and moral system would probably disagree with your own. Or to rephrase: it means they would think you are wrong.

If that is a source of pride, due to them being individuals with their own minds, or sorrow for you however is up to you.

Then I suppose you agree that religious strictures shouldn't supersede common sense and your own sense of what's right.

Bob Baer had an anecdote in his book about a Hindu employee who tried to argue that he had a First Amendment right to sleep with his mother and sister, since there weren't any women from his caste around. Please don't do that.

Ummm I think that some religious strictures are the same as 'common sense' and some are not.

In fact there is a way in which a Sikh man can have more than one wife, if for example his brother dies and his sister in law is left alone then the concept of Seva could be used to marry the woman, and bring her into the home in order to help her and any dependensies she has.

It's not common, and it is not a thing that is likely outside of the most rural parts of the Punjab region, but the rules could certianly bend that way.

I think I can get behind this one myself, heh but shush don't tell the wife, she'll only get the wrong end of the stick. What I'm saying here is that it makes sense to me, and can be construlled to be relgious stricture.

Of course it matters - it means their worldview and moral system would probably disagree with your own. Or to rephrase: it means they would think you are wrong.

If that is a source of pride, due to them being individuals with their own minds, or sorrow for you however is up to you.

Ummm no I don't agree that ones moral system comes from ones religion in the first place.

Pride though yes, that can have a lot to do with it. But does that not suggest a sense of owenership over ones children, to feel that ones pride has been damaged in such a way?

And a fuller answer I couldn't have asked for.
I aim to please. Also, I have tons of pressing stuff to do IRL, so my replies on NSG get more and more elaborate.

Yeah I agree, my thoughts on this run along the same lines.
That's great to hear. Unfortunately, when I hear "Covert from ethnic/cultural/whatever background traditionally absolutely not related to new faith", that sets off the alarm bells for "possibly dogma-embracing, near-fundamentalist, strict-to-the-letter overnethusiast".

I was brought up by my mother as an evangelist christian. I believed (or at least thought I did) in that faith until about 16 years of age. Now, I don't want to claim myself as atheist, as I don't know if there is a "God" or an afterlife, yada yada yada, but I don't believe in any of the world religions nor claim to have my own. As ridiculous as I may think my mom's (or any) religion is, I understand why she would bring me up in it. If she truly believes in that religion, then she believes there is a heaven and a hell, and all are subject to go to one or the other after death. That religion's point of view is that if you don't believe in it, then you more or less end up in hell. If this was what I believed in I certainly would want my children to follow my faith and come with me to heaven, and not live an eternal life in agony in hell. I don't know how this would apply to any other religion (if it would at all), but even in these worst circumstances (a mother's responsibility to keep her children from burning in hell for an eternity) there's a point where the parents don't have responsibility over their children anymore (which is when they are no longer children, but adults). So in conclusion I think its OK depending on the rules and beliefs in your faith, to try and make your children believe, but if they don't continue to do so once they mature, their "fate" is no longer in your hands.

It matter not one bit, Peep. My mum is Catholic, and she married my stepdad who's completely agnostic.

My grandmother was a devout Catholic who married my grandfather, who came from a Presbyterian family. My mum grew up to be Catholic, and we (my brother and me) grew up particularly agnostic.

My parents are Sikh's but while discussing this certain rule, my mum told me that I should marry for love, not religion. Then again my mum isn't the most religious person in the world.

My parents are Sikh's but while discussing this certain rule, my mum told me that I should marry for love, not religion. Then again my mum isn't the most religious person in the world.
are you sure she didnt mean that you should keep looking until you find a sikh girl that you love?

it depends on what he ended up believing in.

i am an atheist and so is my son but if he should decide that he believes in christianity and joined up with the .... lutherans... i would be fine with it.

if he decided that he is the son of god and started collecting up followers in his compound in northern new mexico...not so much.

Snip.

As someone who has been on the other side of the "don't date outside your religion" shebang some religions unfortunately have a bad habit of trying to impose, I'll say:

SCREW THEM, MARRY WHOEVER YOU FEEL LIKE.

Love trumps religion. ALWAYS. Forever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever. If you ask me who I am to make such a call, I am Heikoku. Anyone who doesn't like it, who wants to take it to a higher authority, there isn't one. It STOPS with ME.

Thanks.

Good luck with your girlfriend, fiancée or wife. ;)

It's always been important to me that my kids have their own faith (or lack of) based on their own personal experiences and opinions. Anything else is fake and wrong.

I always feel that many such restrictions, issued by whatever faith at hand, are irrelevant (at least in today's times) to what the belief should be about.

I also think that faiths should not be as strictly put into little boxes as they usually come across with me - it is my opinion that this "If you want to be a Jew/Sikh/Buddhist, you will have to succumb to all our laws, including not eating pork/only marrying another Sikh/no alcohol, or you do not get to be a Jew/Sikh/Buddhist!" crap you hear everywhere is not adequate (anymore). As far as I'm concerned, you get to pick and choose whatever feels the best way to serve what you have taken to be your faith/God/whatever, and use whatever label you feel conveys your so-chosen spiritual identity best.

That said, I do not fully understand most people's need to label themselves in such a way, either. I often hear "Yes, I'm a Catholic.. well, I don't believe in papal fallacy or transubstantiation, but still!" or "I'm a Buddhist! Well, okay, I do smoke pot and drink, and I don't think I believe in reincarnation, but still!" and wonder why. Why not say something like "I don't exactly follow one major religious group, but for my spiritual concept, [x y z] are most important" or something along those lines - and if someone is interested, they can go into detail?

Excellent point and question. People have been using religion as a way of identifying "us and them" since it started. "Othering" is a strong social concept, and we're not evolving until we defeat it.

I'd raise my kids the same way my parents did with me - with absolutely no spiritual guidance. My parents wanted me to come to the same conclusion they did. I did in the end. I did try religion but it didn't work out. We broke up.

In a wider societal context, it doesn't matter. We all have the right to believe whatever we want to. But in terms of within smaller communities and families, there's a religious duty to raise your kids to be good Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, etc. It's a combination of community pressure and religious pressure as there might be spiritual consequences for not raising your kids properly. If not raising your children to be good practitioners is a sin in your religion, then obviously it does matter at the micro scale.

Family comes first. Country (not necessarily the oine you currently live in) comes second. Religion is AT BEST a distant third. If they don't like the girl (or guy) you want to marry, too bad! And if they give you an ultimatum about it, then switch religion, as it'd mean sikhism isn't worthy of your participation.

When I have children, I want them to find their own faith (or lack thereof). I'll be happy to help in that process, but I don't expect them to end up agreeing with me completely on religion. And it would be impossible for them to agree with my husband and I at the same time, given the fact that he's an atheist.

For those who don't know I'm a white covert to the Sikh religion.
In our faith we have a document called the Rehat Maryada, which is an agreed code of conduct outlinning, dress code, do's and don'ts and just what a Sikh is and isn't, etc..

Part of this states that a Sikh should marry a Sikh, 'll not bore you with the Sikhs view on just what marriage is, but as far as I can see this is there soley to ensure the birth of lots of little Sikhs.

It is also something that I totaly disagree with and have many a umm discusion with my bretheren.

So my question is, does it matter if your offspring do not share the same faith as you, even if it means like my own kids they end up being *gasp* atheists?

I say no, it matters not at all. Isn't ones relationship with God(if you have such a thing) between yourself and God?

What do others of faith say?

I consider it essential that any children I have be raised in my church. I will do everything in my power to ensure that they follow the Catholic faith. Should they nevertheless eventually stray from the fold, my reaction will depend on how far they stray. If it's to another Christian church, I won't be thrilled with it but probably won't be too upset. If they end up atheists or join some wacko cult, that will be a huge problem. If they apostasize to Islam, well, there'll be a fine wake at my house on that day.

I consider it essential that any children I have be raised in my church. I will do everything in my power to ensure that they follow the Catholic faith. Should they nevertheless eventually stray from the fold, my reaction will depend on how far they stray. If it's to another Christian church, I won't be thrilled with it but probably won't be too upset. If they end up atheists or join some wacko cult, that will be a huge problem. If they apostasize to Islam, well, there'll be a fine wake at my house on that day.

And when you discover that christianity is a false religion, then what happens?

And when you discover that christianity is a false religion, then what happens?

Chaos, maybe...
I always say let those take care of their kith and kindred. If someone finds the need to raise his/her offspring with an already set set of beliefs, let them do so. Let them teach their kids to worship whom they will. Thos kids will in turn become adults and only time will tell what path they will choose with their own offspring.

I consider it essential that any children I have be raised in my church. I will do everything in my power to ensure that they follow the Catholic faith. Should they nevertheless eventually stray from the fold, my reaction will depend on how far they stray. If it's to another Christian church, I won't be thrilled with it but probably won't be too upset. If they end up atheists or join some wacko cult, that will be a huge problem. If they apostasize to Islam, well, there'll be a fine wake at my house on that day.

So, you're saying you would essentially disown your children if they disagreed with you on religion beyond a certain arbitrary point?

It may sound mean, but I hope you never have children.

New Mitanni, I agree only reverse Islam and atheism. I consider my faith community as much a part of my family as those people with whom I share x% of my genetic code with, in some cases more so. I would want my children to have the opportunity to grow up in a loving church like I did. However if they reject the Christian faith, I would be upset, but I would understand as it is hard growing up a preacher's kid from what I have been told, and I would pray for them that they are content with the faith life they chose.
Btw, my social priorities:
God
Family
Church
Friends
Community
Nation
Self

New Mitanni, I agree only reverse Islam and atheism. I consider my faith community as much a part of my family as those people with whom I share x% of my genetic code with, in some cases more so. I would want my children to have the opportunity to grow up in a loving church like I did. However if they reject the Christian faith, I would be upset, but I would understand as it is hard growing up a preacher's kid from what I have been told, and I would pray for them that they are content with the faith life they chose.
Btw, my social priorities:
God
Family
Church
Friends
Community
Nation
Self

I think family should be first and foremost on your list.

And when you discover that christianity is a false religion, then what happens?

Or if it is shown that indoctrinating children is more damaging to them than e.g. rape ?

I consider it essential that any children I have be raised in my church. I will do everything in my power to ensure that they follow the Catholic faith. Should they nevertheless eventually stray from the fold, my reaction will depend on how far they stray. If it's to another Christian church, I won't be thrilled with it but probably won't be too upset. If they end up atheists or join some wacko cult, that will be a huge problem. If they apostasize to Islam, well, there'll be a fine wake at my house on that day.

My friend's parents did this to him because he converted to Judaism when he got married. And they refused to go to his funeral when he was killed in the line of duty. Said his death was God's punishment. That crap makes me so mad I want to puke.

So, you're saying you would essentially disown your children if they disagreed with you on religion beyond a certain arbitrary point?
He's saying he would kill them.

He's saying he would kill them.

Would that constitute as cannibalism? It is something done, after all, for religious purposes...:tongue:

I think family should be first and foremost on your list.

Many religions disagree.

He's saying he would kill them.

Or possibly that he would kill himself.
In either case, not a fine example of loving your kids.

Personally, I was raised in a Christian household and while my faith is a bit wavering at times I still tend to very loosely believe in God.

That being said, while I have my odd mix-mash of beliefs I don't expect my offspring to share the same ideas simply because they're my offspring. As long as they have a reason for their ideas beyond, "Because the noodle-monster looks so yummy.... I must obey" then I don't really care.

Many religions disagree.

Which is a pity, really. Family should come first, then God.

Which is a pity, really. Family should come first, then God.

Why ? You pick your God (unless you are brainwashed bladieblabla). You do not pick your family, excluding spouses and such of course.

Why ? You pick your God (unless you are brainwashed bladieblabla). You do not pick your family, excluding spouses and such of course.

Bladie.. what?:tongue:

I know that. But eventhough you don't pick your family, they should come first than God or church. At least, IMO.

Which is a pity, really. Family should come first, then God.

Pretty much every religion in the world disagrees. However, it is religion that is the source of the order of devotions, so... you know.

And when you discover that christianity is a false religion, then what happens?

I could say that it would be the same thing that would happen when you discover that George W. Bush was one of the better Presidents of the United States. However, that wouldn't be quite right, because you may actually discover that fact, while there is no possibility of me making the discovery you propose. Try again. :D

Btw: that's "Christianity" with a capital C. Maybe one day you'll discover the rules of capitalization.

Many religions disagree.

Which is clearly shown by the story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. That God then says "sike!" and stops the murder was explained to me in Sunday school as a sign of God's mercy.

Pretty much every religion in the world disagrees. However, it is religion that is the source of the order of devotions, so... you know.

Oh, I know. That's why I say it's a pity that a god would come first that family, according to religion. That's all.

I could say that it would be the same thing that would happen when you discover that George W. Bush was one of the better Presidents of the United States. However, that wouldn't be quite right, because you may actually discover that fact, while there is no possibility of me making the discovery you propose. Try again. :D

So.. ALL different Christian flavours are correct ?
Hello Mormons ;)

However, what you essentially say is that there is no evidence that would convince you that Christianity is wrong. No demonstration that the Bible is full of factual errors, no God speaking from the Heavens, no diaries if Jesus himself etc.

Saddening.

Btw: that's "Christianity" with a capital C. Maybe one day you'll discover the rules of capitalization.

Hmm. Names derived from common titles need to be Capitalised. Check ;)

So, you're saying you would essentially disown your children if they disagreed with you on religion beyond a certain arbitrary point?

Nothing arbitrary about it. You just happen to disapprove of it.

It may sound mean, but I hope you never have children.

I've heard worse, especially on this board. As for having children, when the time is right I plan on having as many as I can support. ;)

I could say that it would be the same thing that would happen when you discover that George W. Bush was one of the better Presidents of the United States. However, that wouldn't be quite right, because you may actually discover that fact, while there is no possibility of me making the discovery you propose. Try again. :D

How about discovering some basic human decency and deciding that it's wrong to disown your children over their spiritual beliefs? Is there a possibility of that?

Bladie.. what?:tongue:

I know that. But eventhough you don't pick your family, they should come first than God or church. At least, IMO.
My spiritual health comes before the "feelings" of the people who abused me since I was a child, thanks.

Which is clearly shown by the story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. That God then says "sike!" and stops the murder was explained to me in Sunday school as a sign of God's mercy.
You mean "psych".

Which is clearly shown by the story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. That God then says "sike!" and stops the murder was explained to me in Sunday school as a sign of God's mercy.

As was God having a child for the explicit purpose of it being tortured to death in a horrible way for no reason whatsoever. It getting rid of "original sin", a concept God Himself made up, makes no sense.

But hey. Causing pain and suffering is a sign of love. Ask any bdsm couple.

My spiritual health comes before the "feelings" of the people who abused me since I was a child, thanks.

That's YOUR particular experience, Smunkee. It is not the norm.

That's YOUR particular experience, Smunkee. It is not the norm.

Making arbitrary "should's" about other people's priorities isn't smart? Oh, dear. You mean just because you find your family to be the most important thing ever that other people with other experiences might not?! Wow, you are deep.

New Mitanni, I agree only reverse Islam and atheism.

I ranked them in the order I did because IMO both are betrayals of God, but the latter is also betraying my country and joining with those who are actively seeking to destroy it. There aren't any atheists flying aircraft into buildings or planting carbombs. At most, they're planting stink bombs in the Washington state capitol building (metaphorically speaking).


I consider my faith community as much a part of my family as those people with whom I share x% of my genetic code with, in some cases more so. I would want my children to have the opportunity to grow up in a loving church like I did. However if they reject the Christian faith, I would be upset, but I would understand as it is hard growing up a preacher's kid from what I have been told, and I would pray for them that they are content with the faith life they chose.
Btw, my social priorities:
God
Family
Church
Friends
Community
Nation
Self

I respect your position. I'm just more hard-line about some things than you are.

Making arbitrary "should's" about other people's priorities isn't smart? Oh, dear. You mean just because you find your family to be the most important thing ever that other people with other experiences might not?! Wow, you are deep.

No, I'm not alleging that at all, thank you very much. If you read what I wrote, you would've seen that in no way am I trying to push my own experience on anyone. In my case, my family comes before a god. That is not your case. Your case, as I'm sure it is the case of others, is not the norm but your personal experience on the subject.

And excuse me but I am, in no way, making arbitrary shoulds on Your priorities. This is the way I think. You don't like it, move on.

Some people, regardless of religion, will take the issue of God before family or family before God in different ways.

If they apostasize to Islam, well, there'll be a fine wake at my house on that day.

With the parental skills you're displaying, I don't know how much they'd care about you dying.

My friend's parents did this to him because he converted to Judaism when he got married. And they refused to go to his funeral when he was killed in the line of duty. Said his death was God's punishment. That crap makes me so mad I want to puke.

That is unfortunate, especially considering his service to our country.

As for converting to Judaism, that is not something I would break off family ties over. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for Judaism. And the Catholic Church has gone a long way in trying to improve its relations with Judaism and make up for past bad acts by the Church against the Jews.

No, I'm not alleging that at all, thank you very much. If you read what I wrote, you would've seen that in no way am I trying to push my own experience on anyone. In my case, my family comes before a god. That is not your case. Your case, as I'm sure it is the case of others, is not the norm but your personal experience on the subject.

Really?
Which is a pity, really. Family should come first, then God.

Bladie.. what?:tongue:

I know that. But eventhough you don't pick your family, they should come first than God or church. At least, IMO.

Oh, I know. That's why I say it's a pity that a god would come first that family, according to religion. That's all.



And excuse me but I am, in no way, making arbitrary shoulds on Your priorities. This is the way I think. You don't like it, move on.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

Why ? You pick your God

Some people can; some people can't. After all, what happens if a twelve-year-old wants to become an atheist but their parents threaten to disown them and hold a wake for them?

Would that constitute as cannibalism? It is something done, after all, for religious purposes...:tongue:

Er, no, he is not saying he would kill them. He is saying that he would consider it the same as a death in the family. He would consider any such apostate dead to him.

He could have said he would have sat shiva, but that isn't part of his tradition.

And as for "cannibalism", that charge is as old as the Roman emperors and just as dead. :rolleyes:

Really?

Yes, really.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

Maybe you should re-read and rethink. Where am I making arbitrary shoulds. Where am I imposing what I think on you or anyone else? You're feeling that way all on your owen, chiquita. Read my posts again, sweetie. Those are my opinions. Mine, solely.

Yes, I think it's a pity some people would put God before family. I'm not denying in anyway that I posted that. To me, me alone, it's a pity that someone would put God, any God, before family. I am not putting down anyone who does, but to me it is a pity.

Er, no, he is not saying he would kill them. He is saying that he would consider it the same as a death in the family. He would consider any such apostate dead to him.

He could have said he would have sat shiva, but that isn't part of his tradition.

And as for "cannibalism", that charge is as old as the Roman emperors and just as dead. :rolleyes:

I was joking when I posted that, New Mitanni.:wink:

Some people can; some people can't. After all, what happens if a twelve-year-old wants to become an atheist but their parents threaten to disown them and hold a wake for them?

The parent goes to jail and the child gets a loving foster family.
At least, that is what should happen. Reality tends to differ.

Maybe you should re-read and rethink. Where am I making arbitrary shoulds. Where am I imposing what I think on you or anyone else? You're feeling that way all on your owen, chiquita. Read my posts again, sweetie. Those are my opinions. Mine, solely.

Yes, I think it's a pity some people would put God before family. I'm not denying in anyway that I posted that. To me, me alone, it's a pity that someone would put God, any God, before family. I am not putting down anyone who does, but to me it is a pity.

So, if you disagree with something someone says, you get to voice that, but if someone disagrees with you, then they should shut up?

So, if you disagree with something someone says, you get to voice that, but if someone disagrees with you, then they should shut up?

Am I, again, saying that? You're the one inferring it. You can voice all your opinions. You can say anything you like. I may disagree, but I don't need to put you down for it. That's the way you think. And it's in humans to disagree.

Am I, again, saying that? You're the one inferring it. You can voice all your opinions. You can say anything you like. I may disagree, but I don't need to put you down for it. That's the way you think. And it's in humans to disagree.

You told me that if I disagree with you than I should "move on", does that mean you should do the same to other people? Or do you get to blather on and on about your "personal" opinion and question theirs without consequence?

I think family should be first and foremost on your list.

Family and friends. Some times one may have friends who are just like family. But, at the end of the day, I still agree with your line of thinking.

Many religions disagree.

Yeah, they will do that, especially when it comes to who gets start the apocalypse. They could draw straws but not all are artistic enough! :p

You told me that if I disagree with you than I should "move on", does that mean you should do the same to other people? Or do you get to blather on and on about your "personal" opinion and question theirs without consequence?

Not at all. But you came with full guns blasting at me, alleging that I was making my posts arbitrary. I moved on with the way you think. Nothing I say and I'm not trying that either, will change the way you think. Right? Or did you take my posts in any other way?

The parent goes to jail and the child gets a loving foster family.
At least, that is what should happen. Reality tends to differ.

A certain person who posted in this thread (I shall not name names!) should keep that in mind.

Not at all. But you came with full guns blasting at me, alleging that I was making my posts arbitrary. I moved on with the way you think. Nothing I say and I'm not trying that either, will change the way you think. Right? Or did you take my posts in any other way?

Family is arbitrary. I just wonder why you have such a habit of criticizing other people but then you get all defensive when people question you.

Family is arbitrary. I just wonder why you have such a habit of criticizing other people but then you get all defensive when people question you.

How am I getting defensive, is what I don't get? You can criticize my ideas all you want. This is forum for that, isn't it?

But once again, the experience I have with my family makes me put them, in a list of priorities, first than anything else, be that God or Church.

How am I getting defensive, is what I don't get? You can criticize my ideas all you want. This is forum for that, isn't it?
Between you getting all uppity and telling me to "move on" and you accusing me of having "guns blazing" I just got a hint of some defensiveness.

But once again, the experience I have with my family makes me put them, in a list of priorities, first than anything else, be that God or Church.
I'm not questioning your priorities, I'm questioning your questioning of others' priorities.

Between you getting all uppity and telling me to "move on" and you accusing me of having "guns blazing" I just got a hint of some defensiveness.

Look, I got that vibe from your posts. True, gauging anyone's feelings through a glowing screen isn't that accurate. I am sorry if, in any way, I offended you.

I'm not questioning your priorities, I'm questioning your questioning of others' priorities.

Smunkee, I did not question anyone's priorities. I merely stated that I, I alone, put family before god.

Smunkee, I did not question anyone's priorities. I merely stated that I, I alone, put family before god.
And that it's a "pity" that others do not.

And that it's a "pity" that others do not.

I do find it a pity, but that's the way others prioritize.

Cute Fluffy kittens
Cheese
Wine
Hats
Friends
Family
Dog

I may have mis-pelled something in there.

If God wants me to put him first, he shouldn't have invented such lovely cheeses, and then given me a taste for them, decided to birth me in a country where they are readily available, and not make me lactose intolerant. What chance did I ever have?

My family let me make up my own mind, although they did drag me to Church a few times for Christmas and sent me to Sunday school. All it did was make me realise how absurd it all was.

It's a bit pathetic to disown someone for making up their own mind about something, especially as it must be God's will otherwise it wouldn't have happened....

You mean "psych".The slang misspelling indicates that I am using a particular vernacular sense of the word, which is in itself unrelated to the more common use of "psych" as an abbreviation of "psychology," or as a verb meaning "to intimidate."

That is unfortunate, especially considering his service to our country.

As for converting to Judaism, that is not something I would break off family ties over. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for Judaism. And the Catholic Church has gone a long way in trying to improve its relations with Judaism and make up for past bad acts by the Church against the Jews.I would be upset by my friend's family not attending his funeral, regardless of how he died or what religion box he ticked off on his census form.

I would be upset by my friend's family not attending his funeral, regardless of how he died or what religion box he ticked off on his census form.

Youre wasting your time.


NM, I hope your kid, if God forbid you ever have any, becomes a Muslim.

So.. ALL different Christian flavours are correct ?
Hello Mormons ;)

To the extent they teach the eternal truths that come down to us from the Apostles and as set forth in the Gospels and in the New Testament, yes. To the extent they diverge from such teachings, we disagree.

As for the LDS Church, we certainly disagree an a lot of theology. However, I stand with them when they are being persecuted for their beliefs and for acting in accordance therewith. But that is a subject for another thread.


However, what you essentially say is that there is no evidence that would convince you that Christianity is wrong. No demonstration that the Bible is full of factual errors, no God speaking from the Heavens, no diaries if Jesus himself etc.

Saddening.

"Wrong" and "false" are not the same thing. "Factual errors" there may be. I don't believe the Bible is a scientific text. I am no fundamentalist. The Bible, in particular the New Testament, tells "how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go," as the saying goes. Historical, scientific or other factual inaccuracies do little to affect my belief in the basic moral and theological teachings of Christianity as set forth by the Catholic Church.

And unless someone comes up with a time machine and goes back to ca. 30 AD to observe and record the events described in the Gospels, and observes the Gospel accounts to be false, I submit that nobody will ever adduce the evidence you describe.

It wouldn't matter. I came to hold my spiritual beliefs over a period of several years, starting when I was a teenager (it should be noted that my spiritual beliefs continue to change in small ways, as recently as this past year).

I don't hold the same beliefs as either of my parents, I wouldn't expect my children to do so either.

It doesn't really matter, as long as they are happy and you are happy with your decisions, why fix what isn't broken?
My parents were agnostic, sure they might have gone along with other faith rituals, but they didn't really bother with religion much.
I suppose it could complare with naming children, why give them some stupid name like 'hercules', leave as much room as possible for them to work out things by themselves.

I am no fundamentalist.

If you weren't a fundamentalist, then you would continue to love your children no matter what religion (or lack thereof) they switched to.

If you weren't a fundamentalist, then you would continue to love your children no matter what religion (or lack thereof) they switched to.

^This.

If you weren't a fundamentalist, then you would continue to love your children no matter what religion (or lack thereof) they switched to.

Go look up the word "fundamentalist." You won't find that idea as part of the definition.

A certain person who posted in this thread (I shall not name names!) should keep that in mind.

:tongue:

It wouldn't matter. I came to hold my spiritual beliefs over a period of several years, starting when I was a teenager (it should be noted that my spiritual beliefs continue to change in small ways, as recently as this past year).

I don't hold the same beliefs as either of my parents, I wouldn't expect my children to do so either.

Obviously your beliefs don't include an obligation to transmit those beliefs to your children. Mine do.

Go look up the word "fundamentalist." You won't find that idea as part of the definition.

"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

Not all fundamentalists necessarily disown their children, but that's because it would be down to the detail of the creed they adhered to. But if your creed did insist so, you would have to be a fundamentalist in order to carry it through, as arguably it would take rigid adherence to principle to disown your children because of your intolerance of other views.

Does the definition of 'thief' have to include everything you could possibly steal? I think the above definition is quite applicable.

Obviously your beliefs don't include an obligation to transmit those beliefs to your children. Mine do.

My dad was Catholic. My mom wasn't before, but now is.

I fail to see why you should be pissed if your children choose a different spirituality than you do. People are different, your children are not clones or extensions of you. It would be nice if my children shared my religious beliefs, but I wouldn't be furious or anything if they didn't. I'd love them all the same.

My dad was Catholic. My mom wasn't before, but now is.

I fail to see why you should be pissed if your children choose a different spirituality than you do. People are different, your children are not clones or extensions of you.

B-b-but they're DIFFERENT! AND DIFFERENT IS EEEEVIL!

New Mitanni, if you don't think you fit the definition of fundamentalist, kindly tell us your ACTUAL views or ask someone for a dictionary for Christmas!

My dad was Catholic. My mom wasn't before, but now is.

I fail to see why you should be pissed if your children choose a different spirituality than you do. People are different, your children are not clones or extensions of you. It would be nice if my children shared my religious beliefs, but I wouldn't be furious or anything if they didn't. I'd love them all the same.

To revert to my original post, it depends on the "different spirituality" involved.

Obviously your beliefs don't include an obligation to transmit those beliefs to your children. Mine do.

I can understand wanting to teach your children about your worldview. What I can't understand is putting that indoctrination above any relationship you might happen to develop with your child while you were raising and nurturing them for years upon end. Do I have the wrong impression that parents ought to have some sort of concern for their child's happiness and well being?

To revert to my original post, it depends on the "different spirituality" involved.

Okay. I became a pagan. My parents didn't think it was any big deal. I would not be offended if my children were not pagan. Their faith, or lack of it, is up to them.

"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

Not all fundamentalists necessarily disown their children, but that's because it would be down to the detail of the creed they adhered to. But if your creed did insist so, you would have to be a fundamentalist in order to carry it through, as arguably it would take rigid adherence to principle to disown your children because of your intolerance of other views.

Does the definition of 'thief' have to include everything you could possibly steal? I think the above definition is quite applicable.

I'm not part of a "movement". Nor am I "intolerant" of "other views" per se. Nor do I oppose all secular concepts. Nor am I a Biblical literalist, which is typically associated with fundamentalist Christianity.

But seeing myself referred to as a "fundamentalist" is good for a laugh :D

To revert to my original post, it depends on the "different spirituality" involved.

New Mitanni, please tell me I'm misunderstanding you here and that you're not actually asking to be deemed tolerant because you "let your children believe in whatever faith they want, as long as that faith is Christian". Because that fit the definition of tolerant of the 1600s, not of the 2000s, and if you're actually trying to convince us THAT is tolerant, that would mean you take every reader of this exchange for a fool.

I'm not part of a "movement". Nor am I "intolerant" of "other views" per se. Nor do I oppose all secular concepts. Nor am I a Biblical literalist, which is typically associated with fundamentalist Christianity.

But seeing myself referred to as a "fundamentalist" is good for a laugh :D

"Rape, murder and theft are crimes. I burned down someone's house, but I didn't rape, murder or steal. That means I'm not a criminal."

Mit, PLEASE respect the fact that one of the people you're dealing with, poorly might I add, works with words and their definitions for a living. "Fundamentalist" doesn't mean only the things you posted, and you know that as well as I do. As well as anyone does. Because people KNOW what words mean BEYOND a specific subset of definitions.

And if you're going to disown your children because they don't think like you about something that in NOTHING affects their ability to function as people, that makes you either a fundamentalist or poor enough a parent that you would do so over a minor disagreement.

I can understand wanting to teach your children about your worldview. What I can't understand is putting that indoctrination above any relationship you might happen to develop with your child while you were raising and nurturing them for years upon end. Do I have the wrong impression that parents ought to have some sort of concern for their child's happiness and well being?

Some things are more important than "happiness."

Agreeing with me about an unverifiable thing is more important than "happiness."

Fixed.

Except you are wrong. Your insecurity about your belief and your need to have your ego fed in the form of your child agreeing with you about something unverifiable is NOT more important than their happiness or anyone else's.

Love and happiness trump all. Including your god.

I'm not an atheist, mind you. I'm an agnostic. But I'm sure whatever is out there is much, MUCH better than your god.

Okay. I became a pagan. My parents didn't think it was any big deal. I would not be offended if my children were not pagan. Their faith, or lack of it, is up to them.

That's another thing I would have a major problem with.

That's another thing I would have a major problem with.

And if I were your child, I'd pay due heed to it: None.

That's another thing I would have a major problem with.

Why?

Why?

Because they are NOT LIKE HIM! That means it's EEEEVIL!

I'm not part of a "movement"

You don't have to be part of a movement, there's an "or" in there, you just need to have 'views characterized by'

Nor am I "intolerant" of "other views" per se


If you are NOT intolerant of other views, why would you have an issue with your children? 'per se' is irrelevant, nobody is intolerant of other views 'per se', there is always a reason or context otherwise you would just be completely insane. You can't be generally intolerant of everything everyone else believes!

Nor do I oppose all secular concepts.

You don't have to oppose all secular concepts to oppose secularism.

Nor am I a Biblical literalist, which is typically associated with fundamentalist Christianity.

And 'biblical literalist' is not in the definition, so why bring it up? Just because you are not type x fundamentalist doesn't mean you aren't another sort.

But seeing myself referred to as a "fundamentalist" is good for a laugh :D

It would give me pause for thought.

I'm an agnostic bordering on atheist, my daughter is an agnostic bordering on believer. I don't know what my son is, I just don't talk religion with him because it gets ugly.

It really doesn't much matter what you believe, your kids (no matter how much you try to brainwash them) will believe what they believe. Since I think family is more important than religion, and because I think that it takes a lot of stumbling through life before you discover what your beliefs are, I let my kids alone in that regard. Religion is an empty shell, your kids are what's important.

He's saying he would kill them.

Well, I was hoping that was a bit of an exaggeration and that he really meant he would mourn them as if they were dead.

In 1945 we asked the nazis why they destroyed books.I think we should be asking why the "Great Convention" of 343 BC destroyed and suppressed certain books which were deemed "unsuitable" to be included in the "holy" bible.Was this not a violation of freedom to choose what a person could read and know? Ever since the "church" has been choosing for us what we must believe in.Is this not a sort of totalitariasm?Certain far seeing individuals hid a lot of these books away,they will be found with new knowledge about "religion" and the suppressors had better look to their gods to preserve them from the wrath of a wronged populace.

Nothing arbitrary about it. You just happen to disapprove of it.

Actually, you've got that backwards. It is arbitrary, because you're just randomly placing a line at which your disapproval would suddenly cause a major effect.

It's like saying you would be ok with your child liking lima beans, but if they like brussel sprouts, that's it! (assuming you don't like either)

I've heard worse, especially on this board.

Strange. I don't remember anyone on this board talking about disowning their children over something so petty.

As for having children, when the time is right I plan on having as many as I can support. ;)

That's your plan. I'm just hoping it doesn't work out for you. Too many people become parents when they shouldn't. Your comments make it pretty clear that you're one who shouldn't.

That's your plan. I'm just hoping it doesn't work out for you. Too many people become parents when they shouldn't. Your comments make it pretty clear that you're one who shouldn't.

I would agree. In my experience, people who say things like "I want to have as many children as possible" also say other things that make me doubt whether they should really have any at all.

I ranked them in the order I did because IMO both are betrayals of God, but the latter is also betraying my country and joining with those who are actively seeking to destroy it.

Because, you know, there aren't any Muslims that are loyal US citizens. :rolleyes:

There aren't any atheists flying aircraft into buildings or planting carbombs. At most, they're planting stink bombs in the Washington state capitol building (metaphorically speaking).

No, but there are Christians who bomb buildings and murder people. Shouldn't you thus disown your children if they are Christian?

That is unfortunate, especially considering his service to our country.

But it isn't unfortunate when you denigrate the many Muslims who serve in the military and claim that they are automatically betraying their country by daring to worship God as they see fit?

I would be upset by my friend's family not attending his funeral, regardless of how he died or what religion box he ticked off on his census form.

But don't you understand? It would be ok for them to skip it if he was an ebil Muslim because ebil Muslims all hate 'Merca!


As for the LDS Church, we certainly disagree an a lot of theology. However, I stand with them when they are being persecuted for their beliefs and for acting in accordance therewith. But that is a subject for another thread.

Too bad you wouldn't do that for people of all faiths.

In 1945 we asked the nazis why they destroyed books.I think we should be asking why the "Great Convention" of 343 BC destroyed and suppressed certain books which were deemed "unsuitable" to be included in the "holy" bible.Was this not a violation of freedom to choose what a person could read and know? Ever since the "church" has been choosing for us what we must believe in.Is this not a sort of totalitariasm?Certain far seeing individuals hid a lot of these books away,they will be found with new knowledge about "religion" and the suppressors had better look to their gods to preserve them from the wrath of a wronged populace.

Yeah man, fight the evil oppressors. Totally hearing you bro. Rock on.

Never mind the political expediency which conditioned the appropriation of christianity as the imperial faith, and the necessity to modulate some doctrines to reconcile it to such elements of previous faiths that were deemed inviolable. Nope. Why should such nuance and consideration impinge upon your immature rant about "the man".

Personally, I'm a genuine agnostic; I desperately want to believe, for callow romantic reasons and to remedy the fear death produces on my self-regard, but cannot logically accept the existence of a being on faith alone. I've far too little credulity, and am far to cynical, to fetter myself with a corpus of provisions and requirements without an empirical basis.

it depends on what he ended up believing in.

i am an atheist and so is my son but if he should decide that he believes in christianity and joined up with the .... lutherans... i would be fine with it.

if he decided that he is the son of god and started collecting up followers in his compound in northern new mexico...not so much.
Yeah, this^^.

If my kids grew up and adopted a religion different from mine, I'd be a little sad, but I'd be happy they were following their own minds and consciences.

But if they turned against me because I had the "wrong" religion, that would upset me a lot. It would break my heart if my own children rejected me over that. And if they used their religious beliefs to hurt others, like trying take away others' civil rights, I would have to take opposition against them, and if that caused a personal rift in the family, that would also break my heart.

And if they did anything like what Ash mentions, I would feel I had to intervene, because that would sound more like mental illness than religion to me.

I can see the points of view of many athiest/agnostic (and apparently many Christian) types here towards NM, but I think that y'all have gotten a little harsh towards him, for I am sure he was exaggerating with some of his comments, like the rest of us do from time to time.;)

I consider it moronic that parents would not attend the funeral of their murdered child just because of a difference in faith. Unlike those parents, I can live with the differences between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Why? Well, I have had positive experiences with people of a variety of religious backgrounds, in fact, when times got tough, there have been people from Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Mormon, among other faiths, that have prayed for myself and my loved ones and these kind individuals have helped us much.

It would take a lot for me to disown one of my children. I know it would not help matters if they were atheist (esp. with the militancy of Sam Harris, I think it is) and their politics were right wing (Dubya, Rand, WBC, Falwell, et al), for we would have a hard time communicating with each other and the relationship would die as a result.

Muravyets, I think you expressed my feelings on this issue perfectly.

I can see the points of view of many athiest/agnostic types here towards NM, but I think that y'all have gotten a little harsh towards him, for I am sure he was exaggerating with some of his comments, like the rest of us do from time to time.;)

What about a Christian-type like me? Do you understand my point of view?

Did you read NM's comments? I hope he was exaggerating and, even then, I don't think I was too harsh.

Some things are more important than "happiness."

Yeah, apperantly your happiness and appeasing your imaginary friend.


I can see the points of view of many athiest/agnostic types here towards NM, but I think that y'all have gotten a little harsh towards him, for I am sure he was exaggerating with some of his comments, like the rest of us do from time to time.;).

No, he probably wasnt. We know him.

If my son had different beliefs to my own I would be disappointed but I would still support him with his own choices.

For example if he became a greenie while I would think that he is a bloody nut job I would still respect that those are his views and beliefs no matter how wrong I think or know that they are.

Strange. I don't remember anyone on this board talking about disowning their children over something so petty.



No, but we talk about letting queers get married and actually following the consitution in regards to our treatment of suspected criminals. Thats so much worse.

I can see the points of view of many athiest/agnostic types here towards NM, but I think that y'all have gotten a little harsh towards him, for I am sure he was exaggerating with some of his comments, like the rest of us do from time to time.;)
I don't think anyone was being too harsh, and I am no atheist or agnostic.

I consider it moronic that parents would not attend the funeral of their murdered child just because of a difference in faith. Unlike those parents, I can live with the differences between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Why? Well, I have had positive experiences with people of a variety of religious backgrounds, in fact, when times got tough, there have been people from Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Mormon, among other faiths, that have prayed for myself and my loved ones and these kind individuals have helped us much.
Could you live with the differences between your faith and a non-Abrahamic one (ie, not Christianity, Judaism or Islam)?


It would take a lot for me to disown one of my children. I know it would not help matters if they were atheist (esp. with the militancy of Sam Harris, I think it is) and their politics were right wing (Dubya, Rand, WBC, Falwell, et al), for we would have a hard time communicating with each other and the relationship would die as a result.

Muravyets, I think you expressed my feelings on this issue perfectly.
My relationship with my children would be less positive than it could be if they became some sort of religious extremist (of any faith, or an extremely condescending atheist), or very conservative, simply because there would be less we could talk about without it turning into a debate/argument. But I'd still love them.

Go look up the word "fundamentalist." You won't find that idea as part of the definition.

...1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
...2....a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
.........b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Quoted from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist

EDIT: Yeah, the copy/paste isn't perfect... thus I shall replace the indent with periods. MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Could you live with the differences between your faith and a non-Abrahamic one (ie, not Christianity, Judaism or Islam)?

This wasn't posed to me but I was just wondering:

Would I seem completely weird if I said I would see it as an opportunity to learn more about a different religion?

My relationship with my children would be less positive than it could be if they became some sort of religious extremist (of any faith, or an extremely condescending atheist), or very conservative, simply because there would be less we could talk about without it turning into a debate/argument. But I'd still love them.

This is one thing I can say. My relationship with my children would be difficult if we couldn't discuss these things. If they went down the route that many do, where they cannot even fathom the idea that others' views might be correct or useful, we'd probably end up having issues.

Not that I would disown them or not love them, but I could see there being some pretty bad arguments.

I probably wont care if my children were any religion as long as they werent in a suicide cult. Or scientology.

Id rather them not be a part of any Abrahamic religion, especially Christianity. But I could accept it provided it wasnt an extremist sect within said religion, or they didnt try to evangelize to me or convert me. If they were to try, they become fair game for the rude responses if I give those kind of people on the street :p

Id prefer in the end, however, that they were atheists. But my fiance wants them to be pagan. So we'll see who wins ;)

...1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism
.......SNIP.....

I think you may have missed the party on this one ;)

I think you may have missed the party on this one ;)

I now have no choice but to wear the Utwig Mask of Extreme Shame. *equips it*

...oh my, it gives resistance to all fire- and lightning-based attacks!

Youre wasting your time.


NM, I hope your kid, if God forbid you ever have any, becomes a Muslim.

This is a thread to discuss religious values and the family, not to flamebait people because they have different views.

Sorry, I guess it seems like there are quite a few self described nonchristians on NSG; I understand where your coming from. If I was as extreme as the types you and others have described, I would not post on this forum as it would instantly turn into a flamefest! In my opinion, New Mitanni does come very close to being a fundamentalist by layman's standards, as many Catholics I know are fiercely conservative and would die before converting to anything else. Beyond that I get along quite well with them. I also know some Catholics who could be considered lapsed Catholics. I discuss matters of faith and politics with them often and it is quite enlightening to hear their points of view. Although if one word is said about sanctity of life in reference to abortion... I check them, harshly, for philosophical self-consistency. Many do not get it, so we just change the subject so the friendship is not endangered.

However I can understand New Mitanni's viewpoint as I have met many conservative/very devout Catholics in my life (one of the many reasons I will never convert to Catholicism- if I wish to follow a rigid liturgy and practices, I would turn to the Torah and certain other passages, which I do, not to the papacy). He would be deeply hurt and upset beyond anything anyone can imagine if his children decided to leave the church. He would be deeply concerned about the fate of their souls and want them to reconsider, that his children do not understand what they are doing.

I now have no choice but to wear the Utwig Mask of Extreme Shame. *equips it*

...oh my, it gives resistance to all fire- and lightning-based attacks!

But alas no resistance to idiotic fundamentalism, and no bonus for forum-based reading!:tongue:

This is a thread to discuss religious values and the family, not to flamebait people because they have different views.

Im certianly not the first or only one who made either of those comments.
Consistancy would be nice.

Family is family - even if they're eccentric, crazy or just plain homicidal they're still the people who for the first part of your life (your forming years) you have to meet and interect with on a daily basis.

Religion should be no bar to family

Im certianly not the first or only one who made either of those comments.
Consistancy would be nice.

There are three ways to make comments; the civil way, the silent way and then there's the inflammatory way. Warning stands.

Okay, New Mattani, here's a hypothetical scenario:

Suppose you wake up one day to see your 12-year-old son burning any of the household's bibles in the fireplace, and he tells you that he's switching to islam "because christianity is an evil religion".

What will you do?

EDIT: While we're at it, this is open to everyone with a strong feeling on religion (or the lack of it) -- just replace "bible" with whatever your equivalent is and "islam" with whatever offends you the most.

Although I have no intention of getting kids, I would still keep my kid (despite his irrational love of scientology) and dock half his allowance each week until enough has been confiscated to replace the science textbook.

There are three ways to make comments; the civil way, the silent way and then there's the inflammatory way. Warning stands.

:rolleyes:

Never expected it to change.