jlay wrote:
First, your assumption is that if your children go to a church they are going to have the same experience as you. Hellfire preaching has scarred a lot of people. It attempts to coerce people into a decision through fear tactics. That doesn't mean Hell is or isn't real. That is a consequential fallacy. It also doesn't mean that fear is necessarily bad. I want my child to have a healthy fear of water, strangers, and drugs. It is just that often times Hell is preached at the expense of the Gospel ,as opposed to in light of the gospel. Hellfire preaching is wrong and a huge setback for the Christian image. I can assure you that if your child came to my class, they would not be manipulated or coerced. That doesn't mean I would not present a strong case for Christ. Nor would I necesearily avoid the subject of Hell. I will and do teach on such things. But I will do so reasonably and logically, and in a loving manner.
I absolutely agree with you on many of your points. There is no guarantee that teaching my child about heaven and hell will have the same effects as it had on me, especially if I take time to explain my view on the subject afterward. It still seems like an unnecessary risk. When you compare the teachings of eternal damnation for committing "thought crimes" (for example), to the fear of water, strangers and drugs, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. We KNOW people drown, strangers abduct children and drugs have adverse affects on the body and mind. We don't necessarily know with absolute certainty that the Christian hell exists. I believe it's an unnecessary fear to bestow upon a child at a young age. Just as you would not let your younger child be exposed to overly violent video games, watch horror movies or explain the details of what the Greek god Hades does to it's "sinners." There are some things we decide are not appropriate for children at younger ages, I believe the teachings of hell is one of them.
jlay wrote:-Based on your testimony I would question whether you actually lost your faith. No one 'loses' their faith. They intentionly reject something as true or not. True Christian faith, by definition, cannot be coerced. That may sound confusing, but let me offer this as an example. Can someone force you to truly love someone else? Absolutely not. I can put a gun to your head and force you to buy your spouse flowers, say nice things, etc. But I cannot coerce you to actually love them.
If you lost this 'faith' you testify to, then by definition, you did not have what we would define as faith. Faith in Christ is a knowing faith. One based on a relationship of knowing one's personal need of saving, and then trusting in the message and work of Christ as the provision. Much like love, it is a heart motive. Obviously you are welcome to provide more background as to what you mean by "lost my faith." As a Christian I would not want my child to have the experience you had either. This is the problem with religion. Religion is an opiate for the masses. If you are an 'atheist' because some religious zealot scarred you, then I say, welcome to the club. But that really isn't by definition an atheist at all. The existence of God and the truth of the Bible do not hinge on such things. I know a corrupt judge, but that doesn't make the legal system not exist.
That's a take I've never heard before. I was using the word "faith" with regards to the dictionary's definition: "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension." I was using it to describe myself as being a believer in the past, but am no longer. If there is a better way to describe that situation than "losing one's faith," I'm open to preferred alternatives. I mentioned above that my loss of faith wasn't necessarily only due to this bad experience. That was one of many reasons. The main reason is due to a developed skepticism and love for science over the the years. This led me to understand that my beliefs were without rational justification and without evidentiary support. This may help clear up some things. The hell situation is only a concern for future offspring, not my loss of faith.
You kind of lost me at your examples when you started comparing faith and love. You say it cannot be coerced. Is it possible that a person can have this same "knowing faith" and heart motive for something like an invisible pet dragon? Is it not possible through rational inquiry, education (and possibly professional help if were dealing with a grown person) that this person realizes this is not likely possible and lose this faith and love for something they once were so sure was real?
If I am misinterpreting your examples, I apologize and openly offer any corrections on my part.
jlay wrote:Let me also try to offer some perspective in regards to the objections you mentioned above. That being the value and meaning of life. When we speak of 'meaning' we may be looking at it in a different way. Let's suppose for a minute that atheism is correct. The universe is not created, material and unguided. As such it is purposeless. There is no meaning or reason for the universe. Yet, we as humans do believe that life has meaning. Why? Obviously, the mind. We are self-aware, conscious and moral beings. The Christian believes that the universe does have purpose and meaning. And that the purpose of the universe focuses on the existance of mankind. This can be studied under something called the anthropic principle. It has its supporters and critics, but argues that the universe is finally tuned in a myriad of ways to support intelligent life on earth. You can read about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
I've heard about this principal before and have to side with the critics on this one. The universe is incomprehensibly large. It's almost impossible to imagine that there aren't other intelligent life forms on other planets. But, most of the universe is empty and lifeless. The majority of the species on our planet have died out and gone extinct (I think the number is somewhere along the lines of 98% of all living organisms). Hardly seems like a place designed for life (especially only human life).
Although the conditions for life similar to that on earth may still be improbable, realize that there are 400 billion stars in our milky way galaxy, and that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. That doesn't even take into account hypothetical theories about multiverses or an oscillating big bang/big crunch universe. Of course the proper usage of the anthropic principle tells us that while it may be statistically improbable, its isn't statistically impossible given that we have at least one example of life in the universe occurring.
jlay wrote:As an example, take the laws of logic. We are using them now to have a conversation. You are using them to argue that life has meaning even without God. The problem, is that to argue your point, you must first presume that logic has some basis outside of man. Otherwise you are using a logic, which is the result of an unguided, purposeless, material universe, to argue that your life which is also the result of an unguided, purposeless, material universe, actually has meaning. We would call that illusion or delusion. You perceive meaning, but the reality is that holding to atheism consistently allows for no such possibility. You may perceive meaning, but it is no more significant than say, digesting a hamburger. It is just an illuision of human consciousness. Afterall, your thoughts are just molecules in motion. The love and concern you feel for your child may seem real, but there is no basis for it. It is a cruel trick of nature. The Christian on the other hand sees the laws of logic and the other laws in the universe as divinely ordained and purposed, and thus human life has inherent meaning. It has objective value.
If an atheist is to argue that defeating cancer has any inherent value then he must smuggle in inherent meaning. If he smuggles in inherent meaning, then he also smuggles in some cause outside of man for that meaning. Some of the leading atheist today such as Richard Dawkins are at least honest about the implications of atheism. Dawkins says, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
If that is true, then you and I are the result of such. The hard core atheist mocks the Christian for trying to find meaning in a higher power. Yet how much more should the hard core atheist mock on of his own who says there is real meaning in life?
So, if I'm following this correctly, you are assuming that life without a god has no meaning? Curious then, what would you say the meaning of life actually is if my meaning is only an illusion? You are also assuming that there is a meaning to life at all. Even still, So what? Just because we might feel uncomfortable admitting that our life does not serve an eternal purpose, it doesn't necessarily mean that a god exists (I'm sure you're familiar with Pascal's Wager, as you seem pretty well informed of what you're talking about
). Are you then saying that I should believe in a god, even if it does not exist, so that I can feel the self esteem boost of my life having a higher meaning?
It seems as if the majority of your argument is based on an objective definition of the word meaning, while in reality a meaning of life is not objective but subjective. In which case, I think the meaning I defined for myself earlier is perfectly fine.
seveneyes wrote:I did not say that certain preachers approaches to bible teaching wouldn't necessarily effect the child. All I was pointing to was that the bible does not hurt children, nor does the message of salvation or of heaven and hell.
I am more speaking to you learning how to be a non-adversarial spiritual force that encourages truth seeking in your childs life. By all means check out different churches. Teaching today at church is different than the norm of say 30 years ago. As far as the issue of hell goes, if your child ever asked if hell was real, if you are honest you might say something like: "I dont know if hell is real, but there definitely are consequences to our actions that we must face."
All I wrote was an encouragement to you to be creative and stand in honesty and integrity with your child and he will honor you for it.
I see. I would probably rephrase it slightly: "There is no current evidence for the existence of hell. Many grown ups believe hell exists, many do not. But grown ups aren't always right about everything, including myself. It's up to you to examine the information and come up with your own conclusion." I like your consequence part at the end, and would probably tack something like that on there as well. I value education and would do my best to encourage critical thinking in my child, not to just be a clone of mommy and daddy's beliefs. If your child asked you, would you give them a similar response? Or would you give them an absolute answer that coincides with your religious beliefs?
