The Benefit of Raising a Child into Christianity

Bduffman

Jakkass wrote: »

What is the point in being so pedantic about it?

Christian morality - Moral teachings from the Christian scriptures.
Islamic morality - Moral teachings from the Islamic scriptures.
Jewish morality - Moral teachings from the Jewish scriptures.
etc.

You surely get the point?

The source of the morals for Christians doesn't come from the same source as those of atheists in most cases.

Atheist morality - what is right & wrong based on a logical thought process.
You do drugs - you might harm yourself.
You have unprotected sex - you might get infected.
ets etc
What I don't understand is why someone needs to be instructed from a book on what may be right & wrong or harmful & safe.

Rev Hellfire

Bduffman wrote: »

Atheist morality - what is right & wrong based on a logical thought process.

Actually atheist morality isn't necessarily based on logical thought, its nice propoganda but its clearly not true.
You can be an atheist and believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. Scientology for example is an atheist 'religion', there's no gods in it just big fancy aliens and stuff. But they clearly have a book which influences their morality.
Buddhism is an agnostic religion (you could argue its atheist also, that's for you asiaprod ), it clearly also has morality based on religious teachings.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

The thing that I find offensive the is assumption that straying from 'christian morality' would lead one to be in danger. Most of us live by our own morals, which matches 'christian morals' quite closely. That is because they are logically based on how any decent society should work. That has nothing to do with christianity & everything to do with whats right & wrong.

You seem to be trying to change the subject for some reason. I have not been making any points as to where society's values and morality comes from.

However, I don't believe most people's morals do match Christian morality that closely. For example, a large proportion of young people in Ireland today choose to binge drink and get so drunk that they don't know what they're doing. I have talked with youngsters who tell me that sometimes they wake up the next morning and think they had unprotected sex the night before, but can't really remember whether they consented or not.

My daughter was raised in a Christian home and, by choice rather than compulsion, lives her life by Christian morality. As a result she is, statistically, less likely to get raped, less likely to be murdered, less likely to catch an STD or HIV, less likely to be arrested, less likely to be beaten up, less likely to be killed in a car crash etc. I am not arguing that Christianity is the only way to lessen those risks, nor am I arguing that every single non-Christian is a binge drinker. Nor do I pretend that every child raised in a Christian home subsequently lives by the morality which they were taught. What I am saying is that raising my child as a Christian made it more likely that she would choose to follow a similar lifestyle, and therefore has produced these tangible benefits. I am amazed that anyone should find this offensive.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Do you believe atheism is true and all religions are wrong?

I believe atheism holds a more likely hypothesis than any theism I've encountered.

I do however believe that Christanity is morally wrong regarding some of the issues often mentioned here. Original sin et al.. I believe it is christanity degrading and unhealthy for the main and believe people have absolutely no right to indoctrinate children into such a belief system until such time as they can decide for themselves.

Frankly the belief that a child can be evil before it can even speak is one of the sicker aspects of Christanity. Augustine's own life should be examined maybe then Christians would take Original sin with the pinch of salt that it requires.

Bduffman

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Actually atheist morality isn't necessarily based on logical thought, its nice propoganda but its clearly not true.
You can be an atheist and believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. Scientology for example is an atheist 'religion', there's no gods in it just big fancy aliens and stuff. But they clearly have a book which influences their morality.
Buddhism is an agnostic religion (you could argue its atheist also, that's for you asiaprod ), it clearly also has morality based on religious teachings.

This is a very strange post. You compare atheists to a) deranged people who believe in fairies and b) a very strange and minor religion.
The vast majority of atheists do not subscribe to any of these or other 'teachings'. Yet we have morals. So I think its closer to the mark to lump theists in with one of the categories above - i.e. belief not based on evidence.

Rev Hellfire

Bduffman wrote: »

This is a very strange post. You compare atheists to a) deranged people who believe in fairies and b) a very strange and minor religion.
The vast majority of atheists do not subscribe to any of these or other 'teachings'. Yet we have morals. So I think its closer to the mark to lump theists in with one of the categories above - i.e. belief not based on evidence.

No one stated you don't have morals, perhaps you'd care to show us where that was stated. Simply put there is no such thing as Atheist morality. You seem unsure as to what declaring yourself to be an atheist actually means.
For example are you denying that Scientology and Buddhism are minor religions ? And athiest and agnostic ones at that ?

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

You seem to be trying to change the subject for some reason. I have not been making any points as to where society's values and morality comes from.

However, I don't believe most people's morals do match Christian morality that closely. For example, a large proportion of young people in Ireland today choose to binge drink and get so drunk that they don't know what they're doing. I have talked with youngsters who tell me that sometimes they wake up the next morning and think they had unprotected sex the night before, but can't really remember whether they consented or not.

My daughter was raised in a Christian home and, by choice rather than compulsion, lives her life by Christian morality. As a result she is, statistically, less likely to get raped, less likely to be murdered, less likely to catch an STD or HIV, less likely to be arrested, less likely to be beaten up, less likely to be killed in a car crash etc. I am not arguing that Christianity is the only way to lessen those risks, nor am I arguing that every single non-Christian is a binge drinker. Nor do I pretend that every child raised in a Christian home subsequently lives by the morality which they were taught. What I am saying is that raising my child as a Christian made it more likely that she would choose to follow a similar lifestyle, and therefore has produced these tangible benefits. I am amazed that anyone should find this offensive.

And again you are assuming that children brought up in a christian household are more likely to be brought up in the manner you describe above. I fully plan to bring my children in pretty much the same way as you - only without religion involved. But you probably believe that your children will somehow be more likely to avoid these things purely because of your christian teaching. This is what I find offensive - that somehow because I am an atheist I am more willing to allow my children to get involved in the things you mention above. Well, I hate to break it to you, but if I do my job as a parent correctly, my children are just as likely to avoid those things as yours are. And your children are just as likely to stray from what is right, as mine are.

But I think deep down you don't believe its possible for atheists to match your parenting skills.

Bduffman

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

No one stated you don't have morals, perhaps you'd care to show us where that was stated. Simply put there is no such thing as Atheist morality. You seem unsure as to what declaring yourself to be an atheist actually means.
For example are you denying that Scientology and Buddhism are minor religions ? And athiest and agnostic ones at that ?

Maybe there is no such thing as 'atheist morals'. But then maybe there is no such thing as 'religious morals' either. Maybe there are just morals period.

And where did I deny that scientoligy & buddhism are minor religions? I understand that technically atheism involved a belief that there is no god - something (in theory) shared with those religions. But to say we have anything in common with them is stretching it a bit. I just think that they perhaps are better categorised with every other religion when it comes to belief without evidence.

Rev Hellfire

Bduffman wrote: »

Maybe there is no such thing as 'atheist morals'. But then maybe there is no such thing as 'religious morals' either. Maybe there are just morals period.

Perhaps to a degree, most morals seek a balance between wants and needs. An understanding of these is all you need. imho etc etc.

Bduffman wrote: »

And where did I deny that Scientology & buddhism are minor religions?

Your words : a very strange and minor religion.

Bduffman wrote: »

I understand that technically atheism involved a belief that there is no god - something (in theory) shared with those religions. But to say we have anything in common with them is stretching it a bit.

But atheism has only one characteristic, and they both have it. They're part of the athiest/agnostic family.

Dades

Bduffman wrote: »

Maybe there is no such thing as 'atheist morals'. But then maybe there is no such thing as 'religious morals' either. Maybe there are just morals period.

Religious morality simply refers to the morals gathered from any particular religious teachings. There are clearly no equivalent atheist teachings. I don't understand the difficult here, or what's at stake with conceding this point.

Just because religious morality as a concept exists, doesn't mean that (a) it's right, or (b) that anyone actually adheres to it.

Bduffman

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps to a degree, most morals seek a balance between wants and needs. An understanding of these is all you need. imho etc etc.

An understanding that is not exclusive to believers

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Your words : a very strange and minor religion.

This was in answer to your question 'are you denying that Scientology and Buddhism are minor religions?'
So no I do not deny that scientology is a minor religion. I wasn't referring to buddhism at all.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But atheism has only one characteristic, and they both have it. They're part of the athiest/agnostic family.

If they deny the existence of a god then fine, on that I agree with them. However we might also have other similar characteristics like a favourite colour or a love of hurling for all I know. That doesn't make me anything like them in any way. Lets just say its safe to assume we have absolutely nothing else in common with respect to beliefs.

Bduffman

Dades wrote: »

Religious morality simply refers to the morals gathered from any particular religious teachings. There are clearly no equivalent atheist teachings. I don't understand the difficult here, or what's at stake with conceding this point.

Just because religious morality as a concept exists, doesn't mean that (a) it's right, or (b) that anyone actually adheres to it.

The difficulty I have here is the assertion that religious morality instilled in a child is more likely to help them avoid many of the ills in life that has been described. However, there is no reason to believe that an atheist who instills similar morals on a child would not have the same result (remember morality is not exclusively christian).
The OP asked whether religion has any tangible benefits for a child. I assert that it has no advantage over the child of an atheist parent who brings up their child in the same manner but without religion.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

But I think deep down you don't believe its possible for atheists to match your parenting skills.

I'm sure it's not intentional, but you are coming across as rather defensive and insecure. Nobody has criticised your parenting skills at all.

Rev Hellfire

Bduffman wrote: »

An understanding that is not exclusive to believers

I'm clearly at a loss here, if I'm saying it, PDN is saying it, Dades is saying it what exactly is your point.

Bduffman wrote: »

If they deny the existence of a god then fine, on that I agree with them. However we might also have other similar characteristics like a favourite colour or a love of hurling for all I know. That doesn't make me anything like them in any way. Lets just say its safe to assume we have absolutely nothing else in common with respect to beliefs.

So other than you're all atheists, you've nothing in common.
Which begs the question, why mention atheism in the first place if its not important.

Are you sure you don't want to go out and come in again

Tigger

can i say that a strong moral compass is a strong moral compass so if a christian upbringing will help provid this then i'm for it

like the other popular myths; tooth fairy, santa and the boogie man they are use ful tools to teach cause and effect

christ will forgive you if you tell the truth if you don't you will be in troubel (hell) this is a useful tool for getting kids to confide and be in the habbit of confessing to their parents , stops them going down the wrong path

so all in all i believe that there are many benifits

as long as peoplke don't start taking it all too seriously

btw i'm not trolling this is what i believe i happy to admit that i believe in scientific method and that therefore i fully disbelieve all magic and suchlike but the question was the benifits of raising a child in christianity not the truth of said system

Bduffman

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm clearly at a loss here, if I'm saying it, PDN is saying it, Dades is saying it what exactly is your point.


So other than you're all atheists, you've nothing in common.
Which begs the question, why mention atheism in the first place if its not important.

Are you sure you don't want to go out and come in again

How many times do I have to repeat myself? A religion is a religion is a religion. Just because they replace a single god with other deities / mystic powers / karma / space monster (or whatever they believe in - I don't claim to be an expert) doesn't in reality make them anything like atheists. They are mor like any other religion. That is my opinion - how can that not make sense? Unless of course you are just pretending not to understand my point?

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

I'm sure it's not intentional, but you are coming across as rather defensive and insecure. Nobody has criticised your parenting skills at all.

Not at all defensive - I have no problem with my parenting skills. But again I come back to the OP. How can you honestly believe that bringing up a child in the christian faith will make them any safer than someone who brings their child up in with the same values / morals - but without religion?

You were the one that made the claim - I just wanted you to back it up.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

Not at all defensive - I have no problem with my parenting skills. But again I come back to the OP. How can you honestly believe that bringing up a child in the christian faith will make them any safer than someone who brings their child up in with the same values / morals - but without religion?

You were the one that made the claim - I just wanted you to back it up.

Actually I didn't make that claim. But you seem to be tilting at so many windmills by now that you've lost sight of what was said.

I said that there was a benefit in raising your child in the Christian faith because Christian morality is inherent to a real practising of that faith. While some atheists do indeed raise their children to practice a similar morality, such a morality is not inherent and in some cases is completely lacking.

You will notice that I have confined myself, as per the OP's request, to tangible benefits, that can be demonstrated statistically. As a Christian I also believe that, if the child becomes a Christian by their own choice then they have the power of the Holy Spirit to actually live up to their morality, rather than just seeing it as an unattainable goal - but that is a faith proposition and so is probably another debate altogether.

Rev Hellfire

Bduffman wrote: »

How many times do I have to repeat myself? A religion is a religion is a religion. Just because they replace a single god with other deities / mystic powers / karma / space monster (or whatever they believe in - I don't claim to be an expert) doesn't in reality make them anything like atheists. They are mor like any other religion. That is my opinion - how can that not make sense? Unless of course you are just pretending not to understand my point?

Of course it does
Who says you can't have an atheist religion. Really you're the atheist you should know this.

Perhaps you'll explain to us what an atheist is beyond a person who doesn't believe in gods ?

I think I'll bow out now, since this is all a bit circular, kind of like those windmills

aoibhebree

My parents are Catholics (not rabidly so, but they go to mass every week) and that's the way I was brought up. When I was about 16, I stopped going, my parents made a fuss for a while and then gave up. I wouldn't consider myself an atheist as such ... maybe more of a general Christian rather than specifically Catholic.

However, while I don't actively participate in any religion, I know what is right and wrong. My parents and teachers taught me a lot about morals etc through religion; I'm not saying it's impossible to do so without religion, but it gives children a good basis for understanding these things.

Also, most children attend Catholic schools, one benefit of raising a child as a Christian is it just makes it easier if parents and teachers are "singing from the one hymnsheet!!" as such.

I also think it's one of many factors which can help to give a child/teenager a sense of identity and individuality. I.e., "I am a Catholic" / "I am a Christian" / "I made a choice to walk away from religion" ... Obviously this only works if parents allow children freedom of choice as they mature.

Essentially, I think religion can give people a great sense of security and happiness and inner peace. It's not for everyone, but I think that, when I have kids, I'll be bringing them to mass every Sunday and doing my best to bring them up as Catholics. Of course they can make up their own mind when they're older, but I believe that Christianity is a great thing for a lot of people and I'd like to give my children the option of having a faith.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

Actually I didn't make that claim. But you seem to be tilting at so many windmills by now that you've lost sight of what was said.

I said that there was a benefit in raising your child in the Christian faith because Christian morality is inherent to a real practising of that faith. While some atheists do indeed raise their children to practice a similar morality, such a morality is not inherent and in some cases is completely lacking..

Ok - so christians have an 'inherent morality'. My point is that morality is morality - and that can be inherent in anyone - regardless of whether they have faith or not. The OP asked for tangible benefits from being a christian. You gave some statistics which can be explained by many things. I have already given some examples earlier in the post (post#40) which you chose not to reply to.

PDN wrote: »

You will notice that I have confined myself, as per the OP's request, to tangible benefits, that can be demonstrated statistically. As a Christian I also believe that, if the child becomes a Christian by their own choice then they have the power of the Holy Spirit to actually live up to their morality, rather than just seeing it as an unattainable goal - but that is a faith proposition and so is probably another debate altogether.

You believe that a christian will have the inherent ability (powered by the holy spirit) to live their lives morally. And that an atheist will see it as an unattainable goal? Evidence please?

Bduffman

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Of course it does
Who says you can't have an atheist religion. Really you're the atheist you should know this.

Uhm -I do. But thats another argument.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps you'll explain to us what an atheist is beyond a person who doesn't believe in gods ?

That is the basic definition of the word. But you won't find an in depth description in a dictionary.
I'm sure religion means more to you than just 'a belief in a god'.

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

Ok - so christians have an 'inherent morality'.

No, there is a morality that is inherent to Christianity.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, there is a morality that is inherent to Christianity.

I think it would be fairer to say that most christians believe that there is a consistent, comprehensive ethical framework defined by their own interpretation of christianity.

But outside of a few, very simple, ethical rules which are shared by most societies and cultures, and most humans within most societies, Christians don't generally agree upon what this framework is. Nor do they generally agree upon how to deal with ethical issues which are not explicitly covered by these few ethical rules.

philologos

Bduffman wrote: »

Atheist morality - what is right & wrong based on a logical thought process.
You do drugs - you might harm yourself.
You have unprotected sex - you might get infected.
ets etc
What I don't understand is why someone needs to be instructed from a book on what may be right & wrong or harmful & safe.

No, I wouldn't agree with this at all.

"Logical thought process" is only what an atheist thinks is a "logical thought process". You claim this as an absolute, however that can never be so, and you can never be assured that 2 atheists are going to have some form of consistent morality system between them.

It's not just a book on what is right and wrong. We follow God because He has become apparent to us and we trust that it is He who knows best. Hence it would make sense on that understanding that God knows the world we live in better than any of us can therefore it would make sense to hold Biblical teaching. However many elements of Biblical teaching can be explained in a secular light also.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

I think it would be fairer to say that most christians believe that there is a consistent, comprehensive ethical framework defined by their own interpretation of christianity.

But outside of a few, very simple, ethical rules which are shared by most societies and cultures, and most humans within most societies, Christians don't generally agree upon what this framework is. Nor do they generally agree upon how to deal with ethical issues which are not explicitly covered by these few ethical rules.

I think what you are referriwng to is more likely the a la cartism of individuals rather than a failure of Christianity to define a rigid ethical framework.

Húrin

studiorat wrote: »

I believe atheism holds a more likely hypothesis than any theism I've encountered.

So basically, you do believe that atheism is true and all religions are wrong.

Bduffman wrote: »

Atheist morality - what is right & wrong based on a logical thought process.

So, you make all your moral decisions based on objective, demonstrable facts, without emotion? Such luxury.

Bduffman wrote: »

The difficulty I have here is the assertion that religious morality instilled in a child is more likely to help them avoid many of the ills in life that has been described. However, there is no reason to believe that an atheist who instills similar morals on a child would not have the same result (remember morality is not exclusively christian)

The Christian believes that morals are objective, and thus is more likely to internalise them. The atheist believes that morals are subjective opinion, so have less of a problem with deviating from them if he feels like it.

Also, is it likely that many atheists bring up their children with exactly the same morals as Christian parents? You yourself highlighted that nonbelievers are less likely to have a problem with divorce.

A lot of Christian morality is commonly agreed upon, but there are also a lot of points of difference. For instance, loving enemies, and discouraging revenge, gossip and hatred - none of these valeus are that widespread in western society.

robindch wrote: »

I think it would be fairer to say that most christians believe that there is a consistent, comprehensive ethical framework defined by their own interpretation of christianity.

No. Most Christians recognise those of other denominations as Christians, and there is widespread agreement about almost every aspect of the Christian moral framework.

ironingbored

Húrin wrote: »

The atheist believes that morals are subjective opinion, so have less of a problem with deviating from them if he feels like it.

This is complete and utter hogwash. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (US), the percentage of atheists in US prisons is 0.2%. From this statistic one might deduce that it is the religious who have less of a problem deviating from acceptable moral behaviour.

Húrin wrote: »

Also, is it likely that many atheists bring up their children with exactly the same morals as Christian parents? You yourself highlighted that nonbelievers are less likely to have a problem with divorce.

Seeing that you brought up divorce, it also seems that religious people are more susceptible to failed relationships. According to the U.S. Census Bureau on divorce rates by religion:

Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists/Agnostics 21%

These are just two examples of how it is religious people who seem to "deviate" from certain moral standards more so than atheists.

PDN

ironingbored wrote: »

This is complete and utter hogwash. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (US), the percentage of atheists in US prisons is 0.2%. From this statistic one might deduce that it is the religious who have less of a problem deviating from acceptable moral behaviour.



Seeing that you brought up divorce, it also seems that religious people are more susceptible to failed relationships. According to the U.S. Census Bureau on divorce rates by religion:

Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists/Agnostics 21%

These are just two examples of how it is religious people who seem to "deviate" from certain moral standards more so than atheists.

The joys of statistics!

As we have already seen, those who regularly attend worship are considerably less likely to be divorced. A census merely measures what people identify themselves as, not whether they practice any religion.

For example, Jews are a racial group. So many of the Jews are also atheists!

This is complete and utter hogwash. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (US), the percentage of atheists in US prisons is 0.2%. From this statistic one might deduce that it is the religious who have less of a problem deviating from acceptable moral behaviour.

One might only deduce that if they thought that the opposite of atheist was 'religious' rather than 'theist'.

Atheists should indeed comprise less of the prison population in the US since they are overwhelmingly white and middle class, whereas the prison population is overwhelmingly black and from the urban poor.

ironingbored

PDN wrote: »

Atheists should indeed comprise less of the prison population in the US since they are overwhelmingly white and middle class

Should you not have added more educated with higher IQ to that?

Bduffman

Jakkass wrote: »

No, I wouldn't agree with this at all.

"Logical thought process" is only what an atheist thinks is a "logical thought process". You claim this as an absolute, however that can never be so, and you can never be assured that 2 atheists are going to have some form of consistent morality system between them.

It's not just a book on what is right and wrong. We follow God because He has become apparent to us and we trust that it is He who knows best. Hence it would make sense on that understanding that God knows the world we live in better than any of us can therefore it would make sense to hold Biblical teaching. However many elements of Biblical teaching can be explained in a secular light also.

I never stated that a logical thought process is absolute - those are your words. But I think its safe to say that while 2 atheists will not agree on every statement of right & wrong, they probably won't disagree as much as religious people. Just look at the quantity of religions in the world & even the sometimes vast differences between people of the same religion - due to different interpretations of the same text.
Agreement of right & wrong based on logic is bound to be more achieveable. After all, harming someone else leads to further violence thus affecting society at large. Minor differences in interpretation of this logic is not really going to be vastly different to the basic rules of right & wrong.

Bduffman

Húrin wrote: »

So, you make all your moral decisions based on objective, demonstrable facts, without emotion? Such luxury.

No, I'm afraid I don't have that luxury - no more than anyone else. What I am saying is that if emotion was taken out of it, a logical thought process is likely to lead everyone to the same conclusion of what is right & wrong. Emotion is probably what causes each of us to have different views on the subject.

Húrin wrote: »

The Christian believes that morals are objective, and thus is more likely to internalise them. The atheist believes that morals are subjective opinion, so have less of a problem with deviating from them if he feels like it.

This is your opinion - & demonstrates the reason why it make me so angry. As far as you are concerned, atheists are more likely to deviate from what is right & wrong than believers. Can you not see how this would annoy people? It is arrogant in the extreme. Just imagine if I claimeds the same thing about christians?

Húrin wrote: »

Also, is it likely that many atheists bring up their children with exactly the same morals as Christian parents? You yourself highlighted that nonbelievers are less likely to have a problem with divorce..

This is only relevant if you believe divorce is a) wrong & b) a bad thing in every case.
In the case of a) that is your opinion. In the case of b) divorce is often the best solution for a marriage that does not work. At least its better than people staying together in abusive relationships.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

The joys of statistics!

As we have already seen, those who regularly attend worship are considerably less likely to be divorced. A census merely measures what people identify themselves as, not whether they practice any religion.

Seeing as you didn't reply to my point about this the last time I might as well try again.
If it is true that 'those who regularly attend worship are considerably less likely to be divorced', isn't that just because they are instructed not to get divorced by their religion? In other words, maybe its not because they are happier in their marrige but because their religion won't release them from their marriage bonds?
After all, before divorce was legal in Ireland, the divorce rate was 0%. Does that mean we were all happier in our marriage then?

robindch

Bduffman wrote: »

After all, before divorce was legal in Ireland, the divorce rate was 0%. Does that mean we were all happier in our marriage then?

From stories that I hear from older people, it seems to have been unhappily common that a marriage would go so bad that -- in the manner of John B Keane's "Field" -- spouses could go years without speaking with each other. Happiness was far less of a goal in a divorce-free society than something like conformance was.

Anyhow, I'm thinking of setting up a religion in which driving or being driven in a car is a violation of morality. Anybody who sticks to this code is obviously statistically far less likely to be injured as a car passenger or driver.

There we are -- an instant solution to the problem of road traffic injuries!

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

From stories that I hear from older people, it seems to have been unhappily common that a marriage would go so bad that -- in the manner of John B Keane's "Field" -- spouses could go years without speaking with each other. Happiness was far less of a goal in a divorce-free society than something like conformance was.

Anyhow, I'm thinking of setting up a religion in which driving or being driven in a car is a violation of morality. Anybody who sticks to this code is obviously statistically far less likely to be injured as a car passenger or driver.

There we are -- an instant solution to the problem of road traffic injuries!

Once again, you show your ineptitude in having something close to a balanced view. Your loathing of Christianity simply reduces you to this form of non-point.

Its very flippin simple. If one lives by Christian morality, one will not become drunk, take drugs, be promiscuous etc. Now this morality is 'NOT' exclusive to christianity, however in the context of the OP it is quite a valid point. Your point about the car is as stupid as saying, 'Don't go outside your door and you'll never get mugged'. You are just so obtuse, and highly unreasonable.

Dades

Raising your child a Christian is only a benefit if the alternative is that child will be otherwise raised without moral guidance.

Do any of the Christians here believe that any non-believers are not going to teach that it's wrong to lie, steal, harm etc? Or is the concern that there are teachings specific to Christians that can't (or won't) be taught outside of that framework?

If a child requires something spelt out they could do a lot worse than adhering to the Humanist affirmations.

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Raising your child a Christian is only a benefit if the alternative is that child will be otherwise raised without moral guidance.

Do any of the Christians here believe that any non-believers are not going to teach that it's wrong to lie, steal, harm etc? Or is the concern that there are teachings specific to Christians that can't (or won't) be taught outside of that framework?

If a child requires something spelt out they could do a lot worse than adhering to the Humanist affirmations.

The thing is, one can get drunk and adhere to these moralities. One can be promiscuous and also be adherant. A Christian who holds to Christian morality, will not get drunk or be promiscuous. This in turn, leads to a much decreased risk of violent confrontation, rape, or exposure to STI's. One can still have a drink and socialise, and one can still have a sexual marriage partner. So it is very unlike the silly point of 'my morality says you cannot drive', preventing you being a road traffic accident victim. I'm surprised you would thank such a point tbh. Again, as I said, this is NOT exclusive to Christianity, but we are talking about this in the context of the OP.

studiorat

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Proverbs.

Dades

@ jimi

Firstly I supported Robin's point about the marriage statistics. If divorce is an anathema in the eyes of your community, it stands to reason there are people who are still in marriages that would really be a lot happier/healthier out of them.

Secondly I don't believe morality should be impressed with a view to reducing the statistical likelihood of bad things happening. Life is a journey and people have to grow up and confront the world themselves - and make and learn from their own mistakes. You hope your children will be smart enough to be wary of these things for themselves, when they reach the age at which you have to let go.

Fanny Cradock

ironingbored wrote: »

This is complete and utter hogwash. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (US), the percentage of atheists in US prisons is 0.2%. From this statistic one might deduce that it is the religious who have less of a problem deviating from acceptable moral behaviour.

There are, of course, statistics that counter your 0.2% claims: http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

Aside from that, there number of issues arise when looking at your statistics.

As PDN suggested, there are some huge socio-economic reasons behind the figures. Unfortunately, when it comes to the likelihood of somebody being sent to prison in America, it is most definitely a race issue. But if you really want to discuss the intelligence levels between races then I strongly advise you not to do it here. OK?

Those statistics don't account for subsequent conversions after doing the crime or entering prison.

Those statistics don't attempt to differentiate between cultural Christians and those who are practising Christians.

Those statistics don't account for anyone pressurised into responding. As an example, and for reasons other than an interest in faith, it might be beneficial for an inmate to try to associate with Muslims.

It should be noted that when discussing America, we are dealing with a highly religious country (on paper at least). Depending on what statistics you choose to believe (see below) it would be expected that the atheist prison population would be low in a country that overwhelmingly identifies with religion.

wiki wrote:

A 2004 BBC poll showed the number of people in the US who don't believe in a god to be about 10%.[7] A 2005 Gallup poll showed that a smaller 5% of the US population believed that a god didn't exist.[20] The 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million U.S. Americans (14.1%) describe themselves as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism.[21]

ironingbored wrote: »

Seeing that you brought up divorce, it also seems that religious people are more susceptible to failed relationships. According to the U.S. Census Bureau on divorce rates by religion:

Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists/Agnostics 21%

These are just two examples of how it is religious people who seem to "deviate" from certain moral standards more so than atheists.

Yes, this has been discussed very recently. You might want to do a search if you are interested in hearing how these stats can be unpacked.

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

@ jimi

Secondly I don't believe morality should be impressed with a view to reducing the statistical likelihood of bad things happening. Life is a journey and people have to grow up and confront the world themselves - and make and learn from their own mistakes. You hope your children will be smart enough to be wary of these things for themselves, when they reach the age at which you have to let go.

Irrespective of religious (non)beliefs, I would contend that every parent tries to equip their child with a certain core morality specifically so they will have a better life.

Bduffman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Irrespective of religious (non)beliefs, I would contend that every parent tries to equip their child with a certain core morality specifically so they will have a better life.

I wholeheartedly agree. But the OP asked what makes a christian upbringing better than a non-christian upbringing? If your statement above is actually accepted by the christians on this thread, both sets of children will be brought up with (roughly) the same sense of right & wrong. So again, what are the tangible benefits?

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree. But the OP asked what makes a christian upbringing better than a non-christian upbringing? If your statement above is actually accepted by the christians on this thread, both sets of children will be brought up with (roughly) the same sense of right & wrong. So again, what are the tangible benefits?

I was responding to Dades' post, not the original question.

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

@ jimi

Firstly I supported Robin's point about the marriage statistics. If divorce is an anathema in the eyes of your community, it stands to reason there are people who are still in marriages that would really be a lot happier/healthier out of them.

But that was based on BDuff's strawman of the divorce situation in Ireland. Divorce in most Christian denominations is not anathema. Its certainly encouraged that folk try work out their marriage issue's, but if someone is in an abusive relationship etc, I know few christians who say 'hang on in there'. Devout catholics may have a different approach, but they don't represent christianity as a whole.

Secondly I don't believe morality should be impressed with a view to reducing the statistical likelihood of bad things happening.

I agree. Thats not what was said though. The question was asked was there benefits to raising a child in Christianity. Simply put, the perks of living a Christian life just happen to reap the benefits mentioned. Nowhere was it said that this was exclusive to christians etc. However, its a tangiable benefit to having Christian morals.

Life is a journey and people have to grow up and confront the world themselves - and make and learn from their own mistakes.

I agree. Its up to a parent to prepare their child for this journey.

You hope your children will be smart enough to be wary of these things for themselves, when they reach the age at which you have to let go.

Indeed, but you don't just sit back through their life and hope. You teach, and lead by example etc. When they reach the age where they are making such decisions, you hope that your teaching and guidance has equipped them to make the right decisions.

Bduffman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was responding to Dades' post, not the original question.

I know - but I think it answered the OP nicely.

Bduffman

JimiTime wrote: »

But
I agree. Thats not what was said though. The question was asked was there benefits to raising a child in Christianity. Simply put, the perks of living a Christian life just happen to reap the benefits mentioned. Nowhere was it said that this was exclusive to christians etc. However, its a tangiable benefit to having Christian morals.

What is the difference between 'christian morals' and the morals of an atheist?

philologos

studiorat wrote: »

Proverbs.

So you're suggesting that parents shouldn't discipline their children using corporal punishment? Personally I see it as a parents right and truly an effective tool that should be used at times. Not all punishments using harsh words work, and it's critical to discipline to encourage people to grow with moral character.

JimiTime

Bduffman wrote: »

What is the difference between 'christian morals' and the morals of an atheist?

There's no such thing as 'atheist morals'. Atheism and morality, are completely different things. Christianity, among other things, is a way of life with a moral framework etc. 'Atheism' is simply the belief that gods don't exist. You seem to be really confusing the point tbh. You are thinking that people are saying that atheists don't have morals or something. Some do, and some don't. Atheism however, is not a lifestyle, it has no moral framework etc. Now, if you are an atheist, but live by the same morals as a Christian does, then the results in theory would be the same as the christian living by those morals.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Once again, you show your ineptitude in having something close to a balanced view. Your loathing of Christianity simply reduces you to this form of non-point. You are just so obtuse, and highly unreasonable.

hmm... house alarm next door still going off?

JimiTime wrote: »

Its very flippin simple. If one lives by Christian morality, one will not become drunk, take drugs, be promiscuous etc.

This point came up last week with PDN (who denied it), but it's clear enough to many people that the rules in the bible are not only very ambiguous, and where they're not ambiguous, they're really quite obvious.

To be more specific, the bible does condemn drunkenness in the general sense, but gives no limits or guidelines (is being mildly merry in the company of friends ok?). The bible does not condemn drugs at all, and the rules about when and with whom one can have sex are generally splendidly unclear when the bible is taken as a whole.

Despite your sincere belief that a clearly-defined "christian morality" exists, when one looks at it more closely, one can only fairly conclude that it certainly does not.

Bduffman

JimiTime wrote: »

There's no such thing as 'atheist morals'. Atheism and morality, are completely different things. Christianity, among other things, is a way of life with a moral framework etc. 'Atheism' is simply the belief that gods don't exist. You seem to be really confusing the point tbh. You are thinking that people are saying that atheists don't have morals or something. Some do, and some don't. Atheism however, is not a lifestyle, it has no moral framework etc. Now, if you are an atheist, but live by the same morals as a Christian does, then the results in theory would be the same as the christian living by those morals.

:rolleyes: OK - so lets call it an atheist view of whats right & wrong. How would the life of an atheist who has similar morals / views / whatever, differ from someone with 'christian morality'? And if that the case, to come back to the OP (AGAIN) how is raising a child as a christian an advantage?