http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20334_1.htmlHere’s a great article from Richard Dawkins on hostility towards religion.Question: Is religion tolerable? Is religion something that must be cured in believers, or must we give them the same intellectual respect we demand?
Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
Copyright 2012. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of American Atheists.
to Anthony,
Since REASON is based on observable facts I would be very interested in the study, the parameters of the study, the questions asked, and the time spent with those interviewed in arriving at the 5% number you quote.
However, if this is just a gut speculation then I would suggest such a statement would be a better fit coming from one of the members of you 95%.
Exactly whcih study/poll based on reasonable and reproducable results gave you this 5% number and have you investigated how it was conducted or did you take the results by faith?
As to my statement of nearly 50/50 I was merely stating the fact that the US congress in question is nearly split down the middle and that the results of this body on the balance represent the will of the party in power which would therefore be a narrow majority. These figures I gave were not an indication of how many REASON enabled humans there were in the States.
I am not exactly sure what a survey to determine the ability of an individuals reason would look like. If one has been done I would love to see the results and the studies implementation… short of that I find it hypocritical of a person of REASON to make estimates about how many people with reasoning capabilities exist in the states. Without the fact you are stating a probability that is based only on your gut or your faith.
interesting…
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=D27BB754-E7F2-99DF-3E2F8A28942743F5&ref=rss
link to 2005 study for those who are interested…
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Monika,
My late husband was raised in a very religious family. He was the 3rd child of 7, his father a lay minister at a little country Church of Christ, and his mother a traditional submissive housewife. They lived on a farm/ranch out in the middle of nowhere, so church was the center of their social life, and they were made to attend every time the doors opened.
Having been raised by parents who were much more moderate in their religious views, it overwhelmed me when he would tell me of the abuse in his parents’ household. “Spare the rod and spoil the child” was a biblical quote that was applied literally. Regular beatings were not unheard of all throughout his childhood.
When college football scouts came to look at my husband and one of his brothers during a high school football game and then to talk to my hubby’s parents….they wouldn’t let either one of the boys accept a full scholarship to play football. Football was a game, a sport, entertainment, and the bible says “a man must earn his living by the sweat of his brow”. Nevermind that they were too poor to ever be able to afford college for any of their 7 kids. Those kids weren’t children, they were farmhands. My father in-law had found the perfect biblical solution to keeping two of his indentured servants for two more years. As soon as they graduated high school, all 7 of those kids were out of there.
Even after I came out to my husband with my beliefs, and after many discussions, he still could not bring himself to let go of the religion that had robbed him of a happy childhood, and a good relationship with his parents. He was simply that indoctrinated, and I know he envied the peace that I found when I gave up the last remnants of my religious beliefs. He as much as told me so on many occasions.
Child abuse? You bet your sweet bippy, it’s child abuse. I, for one, have no problem buying Dawkins’ rationale.
RedStateRedhead:
Your story has certainly made me think. I have no trouble viewing beatings as abuse but I would not have tended to characterise the indoctrination the same way. It is interesting that your late husband could leave as soon as he graduated high school and presumably be glad he got out of that environment but still stay indoctrinated.
I suppose damage to a child’s mind is still abuse isn’t it?
Yet I have heard Dawkins liken all religious upbringing to abuse and this still seems extreme to me. You would not categorise your more moderate religious upbringing as abuse I think? I can see how a strict fundamentalist childhood might qualify though.
I need to do some more thinking on the issue.
Monika,
I agree… Dawkins quote in this regard is simply too broad and indiscriminate.
Broad generalizations ANGER me rather they are from the right or left, from reationalists or people of blind faith.
I gladly defend much of what Dawkins says not because he said it but because it is defensible… to suggest any imparting of your religious views to your child rises to the level of child abuse… cheapens the victims of real abuse and is simply a gross overstatement.
Seriously!!! Can someone be abusive in parenting thier religious veiws?
Sure.
Is all parenting of religious views abusive. NO.
This is simple reason and it is frustrating when someone tries to force a “Black and White” statement onto a subject that has subtle shades of grey and color!!
RedHead,
Less you take my above comments to be directed at you please understand that I know way too little to make a judgement call on you or your husbands particuliar case. My intention was not to speak to your case or even neccessarily to you but rather to speak out against what seems to be a favorite tactic of some debaters on both sides of the argument… and that tactic is to rush to find or create a “victim” for the purpose of promoting thier cause. Sure there are victims out there (your husband may be a good candidate) but it weakens the argument and the perception of all athiest when one of the leading atheists makes such a broad and indescriminate remark and so many rush in to defend thier fearless leader. I greatly respect Dawkins but his remark specifically likening ALL religious upbringings as ABUSIVE is beyond the pale.
Aside from biblically inspired whippings (of which I had my share), what we’re mainly talking about here is a form of psychological abuse. Psychological abuse is a pretty slippery subject; hard to pin down, and even harder to come to terms with. It is also difficult to blame parents for raising their own children in the tradition that they believe is correct. But misogyny is misogyny, manipulation is manipulation, guilt trips are guilt trips, and lies are lies. When children are forced to grow up with alcoholic parents, we always characterize the resulting psychological trauma as ‘abuse,’ whether actual physical abuse is involved or not.
I now believe that the same thing can be said of religious abuse. Granted, if the parent’s religion is of a more Unitarian variety then this rule might not apply. But Unitarians generally don’t force nonsense down the throats of their children. Unitarians don’t focus on guilt trips and threats of eternal damnation as a primary motivation against ‘sinning.’ Indeed, Unitarians don’t automatically condemn all of mankind as ‘sinners’ from birth as a back handed method to lock followers into a particular version of a particular religion.
This psychological damage, this mentally destructive garbage, has personally taken me years to overcome and reconcile. It still effects me to this day. It is, in fact, abusive.
I agree pych. abuse is slippery but the the term abuse is typically related to…
“when one person manipulates another’s emotional or psychological state for their own ends”
…in other words there is a “selfserving” motivation on the part of the abuser. There are exceptions, we all agree on that… what I don’t agree we can do is suggest that ALL who bring up their children in a faith are “manipulates thier lides emotional or psychological state for their own ends”. Some parent’s intent may be for thier own ends but many, many more do it because they believe it is the best thing for them. Granted they may be misguided but you honestly want to label a parent who is sincerely doing what they believe is best without any thought of themself to be labeled a “Child Abuser”.
We can all point to things that effect us dramatically in a pshchological way… that is part of life and being human.
The point that is being missed here is that you have to judge the this just like our legal system judges every other ABUSE CRIME… you have to establish the MENS REA.
This is a latin legal term that speaks to a persons state of the mind when they commit an act. One can not be guilty unless the have a “guilty mind”. There are different levels of mens rea and a very lengthy legal discussion could be had, but short of that the point is I find it absurd to suggest you can defense a phrase that on its face says…
“ALL PEOPLE WHO RAISE UP THEIR CHILDREN IN THEIR FAITH ARE CHILD ABUSERS”
So you are syaing ALL the faith parents had the requisite intentionality of causing harm for their own motives. Please, lets be reasonable.
Faith can be abusive and so can many other things like criminalizing people for which you can not establish the mens rea of the crime or for grouping huge numbers of people under one phrase “ABUSERS”.
This is in the extreme!!!
thaddeus,
You’ve given me much to think about, but let me make it clear that I’m not trying to criminalize anyone nor am I trying to label an entire group of people. I don’t think Dawkins is either.
It’s all about raising the collective consciousness. Over the last couple centuries, our society’s consciousness has been raised on many parental issues. It is now generally unacceptable to whip your children with objects, force them out of school to work on the farm, force them to work in dangerous factories, or sell them into indentured servitude.
In the Bible, a child has zero rights. In fact, God commands that disobedient children be put to death (same with wives for that matter.) Until very recently in human history, children were still legally regarded as the sole ‘property’ of their parents. Nowadays, it is almost universally recognized that children have rights as individuals just like everyone else. Our collective consciousness has been raised.
It seems to me that our society, and especially the fundamentalist religious wing of our society, still sees parents as at least having the right to ‘shape and mold’ their children as they see fit. The civil libertarian in me recoils at that very concept, especially when we are talking about verifiably dangerous non-truths.
I have three children of my own. I know I don’t always do a perfect job parenting them. (who does?) But I take great pains to help them foster a sense of both responsibility and individualism. I try not to label them, and I try hard to present both sides of every argument (though of course it is nearly impossible to fully quell my own bias). But one thing I will never do is hang my opinions and beliefs over them as their only method for gaining my acceptance. It may not be legally binding (is psychological abuse ever legally binding?), but I still consider such efforts a form of abuse.
Maybe I’m being extreme. Heck knows I’ve been called worse.
Thad, I didn’t take it personally. I do understand what you’re saying about parents raising their children with their own beliefs.
I raised my 2 with mine, but I always gave them the information that not everyone believed as I did, nor did I expect them to. I expected them to make up their own minds after careful consideration.
My son believes in God, my daughter does not.
r4d,
Please understand I am not calling you extreme… I said “this is in the extreme” meaning the phrase and the defense of it. To make a “whole person” evaluation of you on this would be hypocritical of me … and from what little I know of you I do not think “Extreme” would be my characterization… I respect your thoughtfulness very much.
I have heard Dawkins say his goal in these kind of statement is the very thing you suggest… to raise awareness. I support raising the awareness I just feel very passionately that the way we do that will either harm our cause and those it touches or be formed properley and succeed.
I have found Dawkins and others leaders of atheist thought to be very careful and precise in their statements most times. What I hate to see is when they resort to the “Shock Factor” that is such common fare on talk radio and other entertainement/quasi-news shows. Shock may work but I think it lessens the position of a rationalist. It may take a few extra sentences… it may take careful explanation… and it may not be as self-satisfying as the more viceral shock statement but the moderated fair statement always does more to bring people in and is more conducive to honest debate.
My final point on all this is…
If Dawkin’s or anyone else shares the goal of hightening awareness and sharing the benefits of reason and the responsibility of factualness, would we not advance those ideas better by taking the factual and reasoned approach of making sure our statements are not over reaching, of making sure that we balance our words as we wish others would balance theirs with reason… and in doing so can we not just admit that it is too absolute and far reaching to suggest that ALL or MOST of faith based parents are Child Abusers? Could not the same awareness be had by saying “Sharing a belief or Faith is one thing but Faith imposed on anyone including a child is an abuse of ones freedoms”
After all, sharing thoughts and debating them is a freedom all of us should enjoy, and no less the parents of children. I think REDHEAD in the last post hit an important key for me… parents can raise up a family in faith or without faith and be free of abuse if they allow that others may see life differently.
I have just seen enough “Demonizing” on both sides… Dawkin’s intent may not have been to overreach (he did not have the Mens Rea) but the effect of the statement does overreach and I would hope that as a community (if such a thing can exist with independent thinking athiest)we would not continue the mistake.
It’s the meaning of the word abuse that has to be agreed upon.
Having grown up in a (couple of) alcoholic broken blended home(s), I came to understand the psychological mistreatment I endured in my formative years through counseling as a twenty something. It was a hard thing to accept, since there was also a lot of love and good intention at the core of my upbringing. But the utilization of the concept of abuse helped me to separate the problems of my parents from my own issues. Many of my issues were of course parented (created and cultivated) by their problems. But it was empowering to take responsibility for the act of repairing the damage caused by their mistakes, as opposed to remaining angry at my parents (or worse: unaware and still entrenched.) My childhood could have been worse. I was never raped or beaten. I was allowed many privileges and often supported in whatever I thought to do. But knowing also that some of what I went through was unfair to me actually makes it easier to deal with my family as an adult. When they try to pull their garbage now I don’t have to take it.
My husband has a similar history of maltreatment and manipulation with his family, only his experience is not with the disease of alcoholism but the culture of Christianity. When we went to see Richard Dawkins and my husband had the opportunity to have his question addressed directly, I was thrilled to have the subject of ‘religion as abuse’ have its moment. Because in my opinion that’s what my husband needs to hear. He truly suffers, and bites his tongue, and has been waiting for the right moment to come out to his Baptist father.
I appreciate that an out front atheist like Richard Dawkins would use this term, not as an accusation, but as a point of empowerment for those who have been hurt by their religious upbringing. Identification of the abuse makes it possible to find the correct tools begin healing. I don’t see abuse as a thing that necessarily occurs because of bad intentions. I see it as a wrong that can be forgiven, after which there is an opportunity for greater understanding.
I am afraid my point is being lost or I am doing a poor job of making it…
…yes stating that religion can be abusive and empowering people to see abusive behavior for what it is is a VERY GOOD THING.
The point I am trying to make is there is a big difference in raising awareness and making statements that are over reaching.
Dawkin’s and any unbeliever can bring that awareness and empowerment without painting with such a LARGE brush and suggesting ALL families of faith are abusive families.
It DOES matter what you say and how you say it… and just as importantly how it will be communicated and received by the intended audience.
If we call ANY wrong an abuse regardless of its severity or intention then we very quickly lessen the importance of what ABUSE mean to most people and by making anything that is a “wrong” an “abuse” then very quickly over time there is no longer the shame and stigma that should rightly be associated with the label “Child Abuser”.
I would challenge that the common use of the word “Abuse” is reserved for something more than a nonintentional wrong.
When we make statements in public we should be conscious of there common and public use and “color” if honest and accurate communication is our goal. If our goal is shock, entertainment, or self satisfaction then I guess you can ignore reason and say anyting you like.
thaddeus
Just because everyone isn’t taking your point and running with it does not mean it is being lost.
I think you are making a lot of sense and communicating your point well.
Abuse is just such a touchy issue though, and it has levels. Different people tolerate or react to it in different ways. Both the victims and outside observers.
I don’t know that we would ever reach a consensus on exactly what determines psychological abuse, which is what I think the contamination of a child’s mind would fall under.
In physical abuse, we agree that burning a child with cigarettes is abusive, but get a hung jury over spanking.
In sexual abuse, rape may be seen as more traumatic than fondling, but both can have devastating repercussions on a child, and both have to be treated with equal respect in counseling.
In psychological abuse, where there are no physical scars to measure it, it’s very difficult to draw the line. And the question of intent further muddies the waters.
I really liked this part of gimme’s post
Point of empowerment.
Identifying the abuse.
Finding the correct tools to begin healing.
If the psychiatric community had the balls to say that indoctrination could have ill effects, believers still wouldn’t get it. “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
It would be comforting if they could see that some balance is needed, but some are goofy enough to think that the suffering they’ll induce is good.
One added thought, and I apologize if someone has already made this point…
Maybe religios indoctrination isn’t so much abuse as it is negligence, since parents are witholding information from their children. Especially in situations where the children don’t have much, if any, outside world access.
In parting, I would like to offer this…
We all know Fairness and Reason are no strangers to history… they have often been the midwives of great ideas and liberty, yet too often are they are left behind in the race to impart these ideas on others, often using the tactics we originally rallied against… “the end justifies the means”. In the end we find our overzealousness to point out the WRONG has allowed us to cast our nets to broad leaving us guilty of the very thing we strive against and accusing to harshely, hurting some, and turning cold what could have been listening ears. It is this that I fear when I hear one who is known for reason make such broad ALL INCOMPASSING statements… I grew up in church hearing the other side do this very thing. Let us be precise, accurate, and at all times reasonable. Over reaching only plays to our most unreasonable self.
This is my first blog experience and it has been a wonderful one. All who have contributed have been great to share your view and to tolerate someone as verbose as me. For my long windedness, I apologize
Maybe it is not custom to say thanks and signoff on these sorts of things but then, when was I one for unquestioned custom
I hope to see you folks in other blogs.
Cheers!
Karen,
I really like the negligence twist. I am goiing to have to ponder that… seems on its face to certianly describe some families of faith.
thaddeus
I hope you’re not leaving for good.
Come on back and share your reasonings with us. You have a definite knack for
clear thinking and communication and that is always welcome.
Karen,
Thanks, will do!
I just re-watched that particular segment on ‘Root Of All Evil’ last night to refresh my memory. It turns out that Dawkins was addressing a specific aspect of religious indoctrination (visions/threats of hell) and proposing that that specific aspect might be considered child abuse. My question to Dawkins at the book signing also had to do with the heartbreaking fact that my father truly believes that I’m going to end up in hell (and possibly drag my entire family down there with me.) It did in fact help me to visualize – to realize – that such threats and beliefs are abusive, not to only for me but for him as well.
I’m not calling my father or anyone else in my family a ‘child abuser.’ It’s not about blame – I don’t think like that. And it’s not about painting a broad brush indiscriminately. On the contrary, it is about recognizing the detrimental effects of specific behaviors, whether those behaviors be the result of alcoholism or religious beliefs, and learning how to empathize and forgive. No, my father does not have a ‘mens rea’ or whatever – he of course means well. But I’m sure we all remember that quote about paving your road with good intentions.
It is the fault of religion itself, not anyone in my family. It is a symptom of the virus of faith.
:::::::::
Anyway, I do hope you will stop by often, thaddeus. I’ll try to get that DVD sent out to you tomorrow.
I don’t understand why some atheists are so hostile towards religion. Why do they look down on people who believe in a higher power? We should all show respect to one another no matter what we personally believe. Is it true that atheists think those who believe in God are intellectually inferior? Tell me if its not..
sassenach17
I don’t understand why some sects of believers are so hostile towards other sects.
Why do believers look down on non-believers?
Yeah, especially if you subscribe to a “holy book” that tells you to do so. Oh, excuse me. I don’t think the buybull uses the word respectin any of the admonitions about how to treat one another.
Hmmm…that sounds like a broad sweeping stroke you’re using there, kemosabe, better be careful with those generalizations.
Some atheists do think that believers don’t turn on all the lights in the attic. Some draw a very hard line about the intellectual integrity of believing in fairy tales after passing out of childhood.
Some very intelligent believers have come around here. One thing they can’t explain intelligently or with reason is their god beliefs.
Okay I must admit it I think I am addicted to this blog thing… I only did it once and now look I can’t stop peeking to see what is going on here… you guys are just too much fun!
TO: sassenach17
First, please understand I truly appreciate your question and I am one of many, many agnostic atheist who are not hostile toward believers… at least in the sense I think you mean “hostile”.
Secondly, please understand I am long winded and have a penchant for obsessing over word definitions. These traits are irritating even to me at times so you may want to skip to the next entry …however, if you are still here then you asked for it…
I suspect you will find my answer to your short questions to be a “little around the barn” and at times a little “elementary” but I promise I will get there.
We all use words loosely and even incorrectly in casual communication, but to do so in such weighty communications as this would be to invite hostility and misunderstanding. In an effort to promote understanding of the primary concepts involved in my response may I suggest these following definitions. Granted there may exceptions to their usage in casual conversation, but for the sake of this discussion let us agree on these definitions…
“Fact, Opinion and Faith”
We might describe FACT as…
FACT: a conclusion so supported by objective and demonstrable evidence that the probability of correctness is so great that any rational person would accept it as FACT.
One might wonder why all the blah, blah, blah about probability and rational people in the definition of Fact? This is because there are things we should and in fact do take for fact although they are only a very high probability. For instance most would consider it factual to state that all things being equal the next guy to jump out the window of a 12 story building will fall and die just like the first three because gravity has been shown to be consistently predictable to a very high degree. There is VERY little probability that the fourth jumper would magically float upwards, or hover. As to the rational person… there are nihilist who subscribe to the idea that denies any objective ground of truth. A nihilist might say… “reality is but the mental construct of our subjective mind created through fallible and gullible senses.” That nihilist say anything at all is a miracle to me because according to this belief even their concept of words, consciousness, objects and everything is completely suspect. With this view it is impossible to know anything and thus fact is a fiction. If the fourth jumper in our analogy was a nihilist then he would just as likely jump expecting an outcome other than death. Most humans find this the definition of insanity and thus not rational. Fact is only possible for rationalist. Of course religious people can be rationale as well as faithful but more on that in a moment. Next…
We might define OPINION as…
OPINION: 1) a working premise or assumption for which we may still be gathering information and have not yet come to any real conclusions (basically in this sense a “hunch”). 2) Opinion can at the same time mean that we have gathered information and have come to some conclusions but are not ready to accept and promote those conclusions to a status of FACT just yet. In other words we still remain open minded to a degree.
Regardless of how we classify ourselves (atheists, scientist, women, children) we all have “opinions” about many things because it is impossible to have all the information required on every subject to have a certainty of FACT on all things within the time we are allotted to live. However we all concentrate on certain areas and are able to attain enough objective and demonstrable evidence to promote an opinion status of FACT in that area. Finally…
We might define FAITH as…
FAITH: choosing to promote and upgrade an opinion WITHOUT sufficient objective and demonstrable evidence so that the probability of correctness is so little or nonexistent that a rational person must admit that this conclusion is one that is held without reason.
Faith is a position taken by ones individual ?will? and does not share an objective nature that can be appreciated by others based on demonstrable evidence.
What separates a Believer from an Atheist is the Believer?s willingness to establish as a FACT a religious opinion not supported by objective facts and reason.
So yes, there could be misguided atheists who prefer hostile communications that might choose to say “People of Faith are unreasonable.” This is an offensive overstatement. As Karen allowed in here response, Believers may be reasonable people on a multitude of levels and may be very intellectual in many other ways but with regard to this specific religious opinion they have chosen to be unreasonable? what should be acceptable to both the Believer and the Atheist is the following statement.
?Religious people choose to trade in reason for faith with regard to their religious views?.
?and by the way there is nothing wrong with making that PERSONAL trade, after all thought and speech should always be free… however, we must be honest with ourselves if we choose to make that trade… when one chooses to believe in something without proof or in spite of proof we call this Faith. The Christian Bible even defines it as such? Heb 11:1 ??faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.? It is a hope based on the unseen. NO EVIDENCE by definition.
Please appreciate that I was a believer… a very sincere and fervent believer… in fact, my faith was so strong that I happily and willing sought out other views with complete confidence that my view of the world would prove as reasonable if not more reasonable than any others… after all reason is reason and it should be able to stand on its own.
Turns out I was right but not exactly how I expected to be… reason did stand on its own it just wound up being on the other side.
Faith can move mountains only in the sense that faith allows you to believe any result including the transport of mountains because it is not based in reason or evidence. If you take this phrase metaphorically as it was intended then Faith can drive people to do amazing things but so can many other things such as passion, knowledge, and insanity.
I agree that a hostile angry atheist is misguided and should not make ?whole person? judgments about a person?s ability to reason based on a persons deliberate choice to trade reason for faith; however, it is equally wrong for a religious person to have it both ways and claim reason and faith on the same subject.
It is not a question of intellectual inferiority it is just a question of honesty. Have your faith and have your reason, but the two are mutually exclusive when applied to the same subject.
Faith is to KNOW absolutely. An agnostic atheist speaks to what he knows and to what he does not he does not he acknowledges the limitation.
Faith fills the gaps of knowledge with ?god/gods?. Gaps in knowledge should be left unfilled until we find reasonable answers otherwise we paste over the gaps with mere hopes and fantasy and move on loosing potential progress and living what someone else thought might make sense in that gap decades or worse centuries ago.
If you are asking if some atheist calmly but firmly believe the world would be better without religion then my answer is yes but this does not mean I want to see the faithful go with it. It only means I hope they eventually see that their reason should place the same demands on their religious views as it does every other aspect of their lives.
The super hero I’d be is of course, superman. B/c superman actually is his current nature, he has to hide or cover over to be accepted in society. All the other super heroes put on a costume to become super. Superman is already that way he has to take off his costume to reveal what already is.
I agree with Thaddeus and i am a Christian. I will reassert that i do not think one can be a former believer though. But that is another rabbit. Does this idea of fact faith and opinion beg the question, and i say it does, that a believer can have as and element of fact, faith. After all words are just sounds put together and the definition of a word has and continue to change throughout time. So is it possible that as a “faith” person that there is a factual element to why and how they believe.
I say this because i do not think i could stop believing. I have read y’alls posts; books and articles, sat in lectures and debates and heard a wealth of info against the existence of deities or specified deity. I have listened and thought, “great point” however i can not look at the Bible and say oh boy am i misled. Or wow how did i ever believe this hooey.
I do not feel like this is blind faith either. Lemme explain… when i was 9 i heard what was a childlike explanation of getting to heaven. I though, “great I’d love to live with Jesus forever.” i believed what dad told me. However i did not live as a Christian for years and years. So I have questions about it being a blind leap kinda idea. If it is then how long does it take to take effect. For some it is definite that their life changes immediately, for others it is months years or seemingly never. So what gives? If faith is what we call a leap what are we leaping into after hearing about Jesus saving us, that sometimes takes so long or at least is processional.
I think a good explanation about justification, sanctification and glorification would do well here.
And last, i am sorry to anyone who has had to put up with “religious people” at any point. It hurts us all to fall into a habit b/c of boredom, laziness or social pressure. i have been one of “them” before i am certain. Sorry.
Q: what is the difference in abiogenesis and evolution?
karen:
I beg to differ with this hypothesis. Speaking personally, I believe it is morally incumbent upon me to provide my children with as much information and present as many perspectives as possible when discussing moral and theological topics. Despite there being relative, personal truths, there also exists absolute truths in life that withstand scrutiny from different perspectives.
Do you think I ?look down? on you?
Then why did Jesus ?admonish? us to ?love one another just as He has loved us?? Isn?t loving someone treating them with the utmost respect?
So, my ?intellectual integrity? has been compromised by my belief in a historic person and the indisputable effect he?s had on my life?
Recounting my faith journey to you was neither intelligent nor reasonable?
jcc-
maybe not by you personally, but I have been “looked down” upon by very many theists. My home growing up was had a large mormon community and most of my friends were mormon. when they found out about my personal views, I was no longer welcome in their homes or anywhere they happened to be. I had to put up with a lot of rude looks, nasty comments, and such. Nothing too serious or anything, (I think I was threatened only once by an ex-girlfriend’s mom) but still, it was very very annoying.
now that being said, I don’t think that all…or any for that matter…religious people should act like that. If anyone does, it should be us, since religious people have “morals”. I can definately see where karen’s coming from though. A vast majority of believers do look down of non-believers. I’m sure there’s a lot of people who don’t, but there are a lot more who do.
Mormonism is not Christianity from an historic or theological standpoint. Just so we all understand that little detail.
Dangerman:
My response to karen was intended to present my Christian perspective?since Mormonism is not a Christian denomination, I cannot speak for their behavior except to say that ?shunning? is, from what I understand, something they are encouraged to do. Christians, on the other hand, are called to do otherwise. Christ ministered to those who needed him most?sinners. Treating anyone as you were treated directly contradicts what Jesus taught. Unfortunately, there are many who call themselves Christian and yet behave otherwise. It?s perhaps the single most valid complaint about Christians that non-believers have?hypocrisy. But it?s something Jesus detested as well. If there?s one thing I wish I could make abundantly clear to atheists is that Christians are far from being the perfect messengers of the perfect message we?ve been given to deliver.