Pope Francis: Atheists can also go to heaven!

[shadowhive]

And if I were condemned for an interfaith relationship I would not feel inferior. Seeing something as "sin" does not mean I see it as inferior. You've made the judgement call that I do see it as such, but I do not at all hold that to be true.

That's your problem, not mine. You can either accept it or not, and I already know that you haven't accepted it, which says much more about you (and not very flattering, at that) than it does about me.

That's the problem I think. Things seem a little lost. Did I say condemnation or judgement by human in the here and now? no. And if that is where the confusion arises than I apologise for not stating it before, but I figured by last statement made it clear.

Hetrosexual relationship=heaven. Homosexual relationship=eternal death.

That is your belief is it not? Explain to me exactly how that is not seeing one as inferior. Because where I'm sitting saying a person in a kill relationship deserves eternal death is a pretty big bad thing.

This is the thing with me. I'm trying to understand. That's all. I'm trying to understand how that is not a situation of one relationship being treated as inferior, because it seems clear cut to me and i'm just trying to understand how it's not to you.

Now I'm sure you don't think of relationships as inferior here. I'm sure you think all of them as equal, which is, again, why I struggle to understand why you'd hold a belief that says some are sins and some are not.

Why would I bring my child up teaching them something I believe to be false? I would be an irresponsible parent if I taught them anything but what I thought was the truth. I would never teach my children that Santa was real, I know many do but I would not. I was brought up knowing Santa was a lie, I think it is irresponsible to teach any child that a lie is really the truth.

Why should my religious beliefs be any different?

Why teach them anything to do with religion in the first place? A child is not mature enough to understand most of the teachings involved and, as i said, why push them into your faith instead of letting them choose of their own volition?

That's something you'd especially need to take into account in an interfaith of christian/atheist relationship, because part of the teaching could be distressing to the child. (Like I said, saying daddy will go to heaven and mummy will not would likely deeply upset your child and be a pretty big mistake.)

Yeah a Ctrl+V (copy/paste) error on my behalf. I'd responded to BM just before replying to you and obviously didn't change the quote tags correctly.

Ah I figured it was something like that. I mut say I was a little puzled when I first saw it though

I once asked a guest minister who came to our church and preached about sexual immorality what the difference was between "looking lustfully" at a woman and simply admiring a beautiful woman. His answer was succinct and I think it addresses your question nicely. He said that the potential sin in your feelings is taking a "second look". What he meant by this was that simply admiring someone as beautiful (wow that woman is cute) is different to then fixating, even if just for a moment, on that woman (wow, that woman is cute... and I'd like to do her thirteen ways till sundown). In this sense, if you're gay then simply acknowledging a handsome/beautiful person is not the same as taking a "second look" and actively fantasising about possible relationships or sex or any such thing. If you do take that second look then you are no worse off than any heterosexual that has done exactly the same thing. But simply having a feeling is not in and of itself sinful. If I gave the impression that I believed otherwise, I apologise.

I hope that clarifies my position

That... sort of makes sense. Well, sense probably wouldn't be the right term. it all sounds like nonsense to me.

Edited June 3, 2013 by shadowhive

[+Paranoid Android]

Hetrosexual relationship=heaven. Homosexual relationship=eternal death.

That is your belief is it not?

No, many heterosexuals won't be in heaven either. Unless..... are you implying I think a heterosexual atheist couple who married and live in a lifelong union are also "inferior"?

That's messed up, shadowhive, it really is.

Explain to me exactly how that is not seeing one as inferior. Because where I'm sitting saying a person in a kill relationship deserves eternal death is a pretty big bad thing.

This is the thing with me. I'm trying to understand. That's all. I'm trying to understand how that is not a situation of one relationship being treated as inferior, because it seems clear cut to me and i'm just trying to understand how it's not to you.

I honestly can't say it any clearer. Unless my above comment is true, and I feel that an atheist couple is "inferior", then I really can't help you.

Why teach them anything to do with religion in the first place? A child is not mature enough to understand most of the teachings involved and, as i said, why push them into your faith instead of letting them choose of their own volition?

I'd still teach them what I believe is true. When they're older they can make the choice NOT to follow it if they want, but until they're old enough to make that decision, it is my considered belief that it is my duty as a Christian to teach Christianity to my child.

That's something you'd especially need to take into account in an interfaith of christian/atheist relationship, because part of the teaching could be distressing to the child. (Like I said, saying daddy will go to heaven and mummy will not would likely deeply upset your child and be a pretty big mistake.)

Indeed, you've just highlighted another potential problem in a Christian/non-Christian relationship.

That... sort of makes sense. Well, sense probably wouldn't be the right term. it all sounds like nonsense to me.

I see your meaning. It made sense to me, in any case.

[shadowhive]

No, many heterosexuals won't be in heaven either. Unless..... are you implying I think a heterosexual atheist couple who married and live in a lifelong union are also "inferior"?

That's messed up, shadowhive, it really is.

I honestly can't say it any clearer. Unless my above comment is true, and I feel that an atheist couple is "inferior", then I really can't help you.

The thing is, the reason I do not understand is because the whole mess does not seem clear in the slightest. And as for messed up, I'm not the one that believes that gay people will suffer an eternal death. I'm not the one that believes the vast majority of people will suffer an eternal death. So if you want to talk about messed up beliefs, I'd suggest you start with your own, because I'm not the one that believes most peoples souls will die: that's you.

Alright. I'm going to put as it as I see it clearly.

Those in a christian hetrosexual relationship get to heaven.

All others don't, they get eternal death.

One group gets to heaven, the others get eternal death. Clearly one group is superior as they get eternal life in heaven (perhaps that is more palatable to you than thinking anyone as inferior).

You see to me, what makes it clear cut is this. If a government came to power and killed off anyone in a non-christian hetrosexual relationship, you'd be outraged. And rightly so. I'd be too. That government would clearly be treating those people in a negative way, as inferior.

So you believe that people in a non-christian hetrosexual relationship will face eternal death. That, to me, isn't far off. It's approving of treating people badly because of their relationship. The only difference is, becaue it's god that makes it ok in a way it never would be elsewhere.

Like I said, while I'm sure you personally would not treat anyone in such relationships as inferior, I'm puzzled why you'd keep a belief in a higher power that does.

I'd still teach them what I believe is true. When they're older they can make the choice NOT to follow it if they want, but until they're old enough to make that decision, it is my considered belief that it is my duty as a Christian to teach Christianity to my child.

So essentially, you'd make that choice for them and consider it your duty to do so until they were older enough to say stop (in whicc case, you'd hope you' tauht them well enough not to). That sounds pretty messed up.

Indeed, you've just highlighted another potential problem in a Christian/non-Christian relationship.

That would be a problem that, like I said before, that the christian would try to avoid. That is, if they held any love and respect for their partner and child at all. Although since indoctrination is the christians 'duty' respect for the child does seem pretty low on the list.

I see your meaning. It made sense to me, in any case.

It makes 'sense' in the context of sin. It doesn't make sense in, you know, reality.

Edited June 3, 2013 by shadowhive

[ancient astronaut]

If there is a "Hell" and I end up there for being an Atheist, Then, **** it. I will not be a slave to anyone, and neither should you. I could care less what an elected official thinks anyway, that's all he(the pope) is, nothing more, nothing less.

Edited June 3, 2013 by ancient astronaut

[+Paranoid Android]

The thing is, the reason I do not understand is because the whole mess does not seem clear in the slightest.

Well, at least you've now accepted that I also apparently view atheist heterosexuals as "inferior" also, not just gays. It's a step, but still a massive leap, I do not see them as inferior.

Alright. I'm going to put as it as I see it clearly.

Those in a christian hetrosexual relationship get to heaven.

All others don't, they get eternal death.

No, I'm not in a heterosexual relationship, I still believe I'll be in heaven.

One group gets to heaven, the others get eternal death. Clearly one group is superior as they get eternal life in heaven (perhaps that is more palatable to you than thinking anyone as inferior).

Not much. I still think it is a factually incorrect statement to say one or the other is superior or inferior. I do believe Christians have a reward waiting for them in heaven, but that does not make us superior.

So essentially, you'd make that choice for them and consider it your duty to do so until they were older enough to say stop (in whicc case, you'd hope you' tauht them well enough not to). That sounds pretty messed up.

I'd teach my children what I believed to be true. You would too, if you ever had children. I know you would.

[shadowhive]

Well, at least you've now accepted that I also apparently view atheist heterosexuals as "inferior" also, not just gays. It's a step, but still a massive leap, I do not see them as inferior.

Well yeah, because you... well, do. Like I said you do not view them as inferior here in this world, but your beliefs for what's beyond that, well that's a different story altogether.

No, I'm not in a heterosexual relationship, I still believe I'll be in heaven.

I suppose I should have added the qualify that this was about those in relationships.

Not much. I still think it is a factually incorrect statement to say one or the other is superior or inferior. I do believe Christians have a reward waiting for them in heaven, but that does not make us superior.

Is it? You get 'rewarded' with eternal life, everyone else gets 'punished' with eternal death. Sounds like one is superior to the other to me.

If I gave one person a cake and shot another person in the head, I'd be treating one superior to the other. Same thing here. Only, as I said, it's god so morality kinda takes a back seat. Way back.

I'd teach my children what I believed to be true. You would too, if you ever had children. I know you would.

I'd not teach my children any religious belief. I would let them find out about religion at the appropriate age and then they would decide for themselves. I'd not push them to be agnostic like me at any stage of their upbringing. That's because I, you know, respect them as being individual human beings. Strange how that seems like an alien concept to you.

I would however, teach them certain truths. Not beliefs, truths. You know, like accepting people. That other people are different. But those 'teachings' are not designed to lead them towards a religion.

Edited June 3, 2013 by shadowhive

[+Paranoid Android]

Well yeah, because you... well, do.

No, I don't. Now cue the back-and-forth:

You: Yea-eah

Me: Nah-ahh

You: Yea-eah

Me: Nah-ahh

*repeat ad nauseum*

Reminds me of being a kid in the backseat of our car arguing with my brother.

I suppose I should have added the qualify that this was about those in relationships.

I know what you meant. My comment was more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. Maybe I should have used a " " smiley to get the humour through.

I'd not teach my children any religious belief. I would let them find out about religion at the appropriate age and then they would decide for themselves. I'd not push them to be agnostic like me at any stage of their upbringing. That's because I, you know, respect them as being individual human beings. Strange how that seems like an alien concept to you.

I would however, teach them certain truths. Not beliefs, truths. You know, like accepting people. That other people are different. But those 'teachings' are not designed to lead them towards a religion.

Maybe you wouldn't directly say "you must be an agnostic, little Shadowhive Jr", but kids pick up on their parents beliefs far more than simply the words we say. You'd teach him truth as you see it, morality as you see it, life as you see it. You'll teach him how to live without a religious deity, so in essence you're teaching him atheism/agnosticism to be true. Then it'll be up to him to decide whether he wants to change his non-belief.

[shadowhive]

No, I don't. Now cue the back-and-forth:

You: Yea-eah

Me: Nah-ahh

You: Yea-eah

Me: Nah-ahh

*repeat ad nauseum*

Reminds me of being a kid in the backseat of our car arguing with my brother.

No, I'm just trying to understand how in the real world that we live in killing or otherwise harming another human being is obviously treating them badly and believing it's acceptable is a bad thing, but believing god does so is neither.

I know what you meant. My comment was more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. Maybe I should have used a " " smiley to get the humour through.

Ah. A lot of humor comes from the tonne of the words used which doesn't really translate with text.

Maybe you wouldn't directly say "you must be an agnostic, little Shadowhive Jr", but kids pick up on their parents beliefs far more than simply the words we say. You'd teach him truth as you see it, morality as you see it, life as you see it. You'll teach him how to live without a religious deity, so in essence you're teaching him atheism/agnosticism to be true. Then it'll be up to him to decide whether he wants to change his non-belief.

I wouldn't teach the truth 'as I see it' I'd teach them facts. You know, what facts are right? They're not found in your little bible but by looking around and seeing humanity as it is now. So while you'd be teaching your kid that everyone is a sinner, that homosexuality is a sin and pretty much everyone they encounter will get eternal death when they die. I'd not be doing anything even close to that. I'd not teach them my views on god, the afterlife, or religion.

It's like this. I'd not teach sex education to a 5 year old. Why? Because such education is not appropriate for such a child to learn. Religion, and many of it's concepts, are things that are beyond the grasp and understanding of most children (hell, for some believers it's beyond their understanding as adults) so they could learn about it when they are ready for it, not before.

Like I aid, the important thing is children are individuals and i've no desire (unlike you) to get a child into religion until they are old enough to understand it.

[+Paranoid Android]

Ah. A lot of humor comes from the tonne of the words used which doesn't really translate with text.

Hope that's better.

I wouldn't teach the truth 'as I see it' I'd teach them facts. You know, what facts are right? They're not found in your little bible but by looking around and seeing humanity as it is now. So while you'd be teaching your kid that everyone is a sinner, that homosexuality is a sin and pretty much everyone they encounter will get eternal death when they die. I'd not be doing anything even close to that. I'd not teach them my views on god, the afterlife, or religion.

It's like this. I'd not teach sex education to a 5 year old. Why? Because such education is not appropriate for such a child to learn. Religion, and many of it's concepts, are things that are beyond the grasp and understanding of most children (hell, for some believers it's beyond their understanding as adults) so they could learn about it when they are ready for it, not before.

Like I aid, the important thing is children are individuals and i've no desire (unlike you) to get a child into religion until they are old enough to understand it.

I wouldn't teach sex ed to a five-year old either. Though interestingly, the Australian kids program, Play School, got into the news several years ago for having a kids story about a little girl and her two mummies. So it seems that teaching gay marriage to be acceptable is age appropriate to a five-year old. I can't imagine saying "Jesus is your friend who is always with you everywhere you go" to be any worse (and in all likelihood much better) in age-appropriate terms.

I wouldn't teach a five-year old that homosexuality is a sin, they're not old enough to begin to think about things such as their sexuality and sexual urges. I'm not even sure they're old enough to be taught something such as "sin". I can teach them right from wrong, and when they get older I can tell them about sin and exactly why Jesus is their friend who loves them always.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[shadowhive]

Hope that's better.

Yeah, it is.

I wouldn't teach sex ed to a five-year old either. Though interestingly, the Australian kids program, Play School, got into the news several years ago for having a kids story about a little girl and her two mummies. So it seems that teaching gay marriage to be acceptable is age appropriate to a five-year old. I can't imagine saying "Jesus is your friend who is always with you everywhere you go" to be any worse (and in all likelihood much better) in age-appropriate terms.

I don't see how teaching about gay marriage is inappropriate. I mean people would be comfortable with teaching that straight marriage is acceptable at a younger age than that. So I don't really see how that's inappropriate. It's just saying that love comes in more than one form.

Most of the other beliefs aren't really age appropriate though.

I wouldn't teach a five-year old that homosexuality is a sin, they're not old enough to begin to think about things such as their sexuality and sexual urges. I'm not even sure they're old enough to be taught something such as "sin". I can teach them right from wrong, and when they get older I can tell them about sin and exactly why Jesus is their friend who loves them always.

I'd argue that sin, as concept, isn't something you should be teaching to a kid at any age. Teaching right from wrong is a much better thing than bringing sin into (especially since the two systems conflict and a child wouldn't be able to understand why).

[skytwister]

The pope is nothing more than a cartoon figure. What good is a Pope

Someone plaese tell me what good a Pope has done.

In my eyes, that's too much of a simplistic view. Hardly anything in life is black or white.

Let me just preface this by saying 'm not religious but I respect people who have found faith, be it in the face of Catholicism or elsewhere. In regards to papacy in historical terms, the pope has had tremendous power in politics and government ruling. Nowadays, while temporal power isn't in the hands of the pope, he still has tremendous influence in modern defintions of morality, proper conduct, faith. Pope John Paul II, if you want a specific name, openly opposed the war in Iraq, criticized the apartheid in South Africa, his visits in Chile and Paraguay are linked to the collapse of dictatorship in those countries. While maintaining the conservative stance of lgbt relations, he insisted homosexual people still have the same rights and dignity as heterosexual folks. Issued a number of apologies, amognst which the process against Gailileo, stake burnings, slave trades (more here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologies_by_Pope_John_Paul_II) As for any religious leader, there's heaps of controversies and scandals but it's myopic to say the life of someone whose presence and stance on so many important issues has altered history is similar to that of a cartoon figure.

Anyway, more on topic. Anyone else ever think that the notions of heaven and hell are just too human and basic?

[+Paranoid Android]

I don't see how teaching about gay marriage is inappropriate. I mean people would be comfortable with teaching that straight marriage is acceptable at a younger age than that. So I don't really see how that's inappropriate. It's just saying that love comes in more than one form.

Most of the other beliefs aren't really age appropriate though.

It isn't inappropriate, but is it "age" appropriate to teach young children about gay marriages? After all, a child watching that is going to ask their parents "why does she have two mummies"? In any case, I didn't argue that it wasn't age appropriate - I'm actually agnostic on this front (in other words, I'm not sure if it was to young or not), I'm sure some parents would think it appropriate while others won't. What I was saying was that teaching a 5-year old child about gay marriage is not any better than saying "Jesus is your friend and loves you very very much". After all, isn't that telling a child that "love comes in many forms"?

I'd argue that sin, as concept, isn't something you should be teaching to a kid at any age. Teaching right from wrong is a much better thing than bringing sin into (especially since the two systems conflict and a child wouldn't be able to understand why).

Depends how young we're talking about. To a point I agree, but at what point does a kid grow into a teenager or young adult, and at what point should the concept of "sin" be introduced? 13 years, 16 years, 21 years? I heard about "sin" pretty much for the first time when I was 12. Unfortunately, it was from the words of a fire-and-brimstone preacher who scared me into conversion. My conversion lasted about 2 weeks, before I stopped believing. Fear is a poor motivator, at least it was for me. Thankfully as I grew up I later heard about who Jesus was, this time from a place of love, and it made much more sense (obviously, since I converted as a 19-20'ish year old, not sure now exactly when but it was around that time, a year or two out of High School).

But I digress. I think different Christian parents would teach their children about sin from a different age. Certainly I can't agree with those who would take their children into a Hell House. Unlike typical haunted houses kids aren't being told that this is a real depiction of eternity. The Hell House is therefore a horrid practice, in my opinion. Thankfully I don't think there are any in Australia, and most usually they seem to happen in America (where Halloween is celebrated far more flamboyantly than elsewhere in the world, it seems). Most people (even most Christians) seem horrified by the idea of Hell Houses.

[markdohle]

I am the way, the truth and the life - no man comes to the Father but by me. Christ said this and left no doubt about who He claimed to be. One either believes this or they do not. It is their choice and only their choice. I am not a Catholic basher but I disagree with their doctrines and would never be a part of their church for that reason. I respect them for the good they do in the world but THIS is apostasy imo. It is called ecumenism and since it seems so comfortable to men it is surely destructive. It is similar to the "christian" churches which worship with Muslims, saying they worship the same god.

I am a Catholic. What is being said is that all who are saved are saved through Jesus Christ. I think the last judgement in Matt deals with this aspect of the human heart, filled with love, that comes from Christ Jesus.

Peace

mark

[shadowhive]

It isn't inappropriate, but is it "age" appropriate to teach young children about gay marriages? After all, a child watching that is going to ask their parents "why does she have two mummies"? In any case, I didn't argue that it wasn't age appropriate - I'm actually agnostic on this front (in other words, I'm not sure if it was to young or not), I'm sure some parents would think it appropriate while others won't. What I was saying was that teaching a 5-year old child about gay marriage is not any better than saying "Jesus is your friend and loves you very very much". After all, isn't that telling a child that "love comes in many forms"?

Even without the book the kid might be in a situation where they ask that question (seeing same sex parent with a kid in the park, or interacting with a kid at school/preschool where that child has such a family). It's one of those things that's a reality and kids should be made aware that different families exist, instead of being taught there' only one because exposure to the world would mean they'd quickly find out otherwise.

That's a completely different kind of thing though isn't it? Loving another human being is clear for all to see, but jesus isn't present like a human and is more akin to an invisible friend. Not being condesending there, but the love between two humans is much more tangible and obvious that the love of jesus.

That's very different from saying 'some boys love boys, some boys love girls and some girls love girls'.

Depends how young we're talking about. To a point I agree, but at what point does a kid grow into a teenager or young adult, and at what point should the concept of "sin" be introduced? 13 years, 16 years, 21 years? I heard about "sin" pretty much for the first time when I was 12. Unfortunately, it was from the words of a fire-and-brimstone preacher who scared me into conversion. My conversion lasted about 2 weeks, before I stopped believing. Fear is a poor motivator, at least it was for me. Thankfully as I grew up I later heard about who Jesus was, this time from a place of love, and it made much more sense (obviously, since I converted as a 19-20'ish year old, not sure now exactly when but it was around that time, a year or two out of High School).

But I digress. I think different Christian parents would teach their children about sin from a different age. Certainly I can't agree with those who would take their children into a Hell House. Unlike typical haunted houses kids aren't being told that this is a real depiction of eternity. The Hell House is therefore a horrid practice, in my opinion. Thankfully I don't think there are any in Australia, and most usually they seem to happen in America (where Halloween is celebrated far more flamboyantly than elsewhere in the world, it seems). Most people (even most Christians) seem horrified by the idea of Hell Houses.

Definitely the concept shouldn't be taught to children that are in preschool. I'd say such a concept shouldn't be introduced at all until they were a young adult. And even then it should come with the condition that if the kid says stop you stop and back off with the concept.

Exactly, fear is a poor motivator and the concept of sin can be introduced in a fear based way or in a manner that a kid can take wrong. Again, even adults that are believers can take it the wrong way, so it's a very fair point to make.

Looking at what you say about your own conversion, that is why I'm puzzled about your position with children. You freely made your decision at 19-20 of your own volition. You weren't scared into it, or had it pushed down your throat from childhood. So I find it odd that you think following that route for another person is ok.

Ah I've heard of that. In fact one was on tv just over a week ago and I turned it off because some of the things they were saying was just too vile. Thankfully, like Australia, there's none here either. They truly seem horrific, but it's what happens when kids try to use sin as a weapon, which is what make me so uncomfortable

[+Paranoid Android]

Even without the book the kid might be in a situation where they ask that question (seeing same sex parent with a kid in the park, or interacting with a kid at school/preschool where that child has such a family). It's one of those things that's a reality and kids should be made aware that different families exist, instead of being taught there' only one because exposure to the world would mean they'd quickly find out otherwise.

That's a completely different kind of thing though isn't it? Loving another human being is clear for all to see, but jesus isn't present like a human and is more akin to an invisible friend. Not being condesending there, but the love between two humans is much more tangible and obvious that the love of jesus.

That's very different from saying 'some boys love boys, some boys love girls and some girls love girls'.

To other people Jesus' love might not be evident, but to me it is very much evident.

Definitely the concept shouldn't be taught to children that are in preschool. I'd say such a concept shouldn't be introduced at all until they were a young adult. And even then it should come with the condition that if the kid says stop you stop and back off with the concept.

Exactly, fear is a poor motivator and the concept of sin can be introduced in a fear based way or in a manner that a kid can take wrong. Again, even adults that are believers can take it the wrong way, so it's a very fair point to make.

Looking at what you say about your own conversion, that is why I'm puzzled about your position with children. You freely made your decision at 19-20 of your own volition. You weren't scared into it, or had it pushed down your throat from childhood. So I find it odd that you think following that route for another person is ok.

My beliefs are something I will teach to my children because they are MY beliefs, and I have the Right to give them to my child as truth. Just because I came to a decision about Christ as a young adult, I don't see the logic in therefore doing the same with my kid. I'll tell them what I believe, and I'll tell them it's the truth as I see it. As they get older, I'll give them more detail about the specifics of my belief, and I'll also teach them about the world religions around them, and tell them that I don't believe these to be true, but other people do. Then they can choose to do whatever they want with it. But as they are growing up I will be teaching them that Jesus is the truth.

Apart from anything else, let's say I marry a Christian. We both go to church on Sunday. Should one of us stay home with 9-year old little Jimmy (or better yet, hire a babysitter and leave the kid at home) just so we don't expose them to the regular church gathering? Or do we take them to church and let them sit in Sunday School singing songs about how much they love Jesus? Maybe to mitigate issues, we should let them sing to Jesus and then on the way home tell them that not everyone believes in Jesus and they should ignore everything they just did because it might just be a lie - that's a sure way to confuse a child. Or, we could bring them to church, but not allow them into Sunday School, instead taking an i-Pad and headphones, to let them play computer games during the service so they don't have to listen to the sermon that a 9-year old wouldn't understand anyway? All the while every other kid in the congregation is playing games together, drawing pictures and singing about Jesus (and what would my kids say when they get back to their friends and get asked why they weren't at Sunday School).

What if some of the church members had kids the same age? Should we stop them from being friends, or conversely do we tell the kid that they aren't allowed to go to church to see their friends, that they'll have to wait?

What about home life? Do we stop praying before meals so that we don't accidentally indoctrinate the kids? When we go on a journey, do we stop praying to God for a safe trip just because it might be influential in a kids decision to turn to Christ? As my wife and I sit down to read the Bible together, do we simply not allow our children to join in (in an age-appropriate manner, of course).

What would you do if you were going to church with your partner every Sunday? Facing some of the issues that I've just mentioned. Tell me, I'd really like to know how you would handle it?

Ah I've heard of that. In fact one was on tv just over a week ago and I turned it off because some of the things they were saying was just too vile. Thankfully, like Australia, there's none here either. They truly seem horrific, but it's what happens when kids try to use sin as a weapon, which is what make me so uncomfortable

I'd never advocate using my beliefs in that manner, so to me it doesn't scare me. Edited June 3, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[shadowhive]

To other people Jesus' love might not be evident, but to me it is very much evident.

That's the problem. It's a subjective, not objective love.

My beliefs are something I will teach to my children because they are MY beliefs, and I have the Right to give them to my child as truth. Just because I came to a decision about Christ as a young adult, I don't see the logic in therefore doing the same with my kid. I'll tell them what I believe, and I'll tell them it's the truth as I see it. As they get older, I'll give them more detail about the specifics of my belief, and I'll also teach them about the world religions around them, and tell them that I don't believe these to be true, but other people do. Then they can choose to do whatever they want with it. But as they are growing up I will be teaching them that Jesus is the truth.

Your rights are all well and good, but the child has rights and I don't see how shoving your beliefs at them is respecting their rights.

Apart from anything else, let's say I marry a Christian. We both go to church on Sunday. Should one of us stay home with 9-year old little Jimmy (or better yet, hire a babysitter and leave the kid at home) just so we don't expose them to the regular church gathering? Or do we take them to church and let them sit in Sunday School singing songs about how much they love Jesus? Maybe to mitigate issues, we should let them sing to Jesus and then on the way home tell them that not everyone believes in Jesus and they should ignore everything they just did because it might just be a lie - that's a sure way to confuse a child. Or, we could bring them to church, but not allow them into Sunday School, instead taking an i-Pad and headphones, to let them play computer games during the service so they don't have to listen to the sermon that a 9-year old wouldn't understand anyway? All the while every other kid in the congregation is playing games, drawing pictures and singing about Jesus.

What if some of the church members had kids the same age? Should we stop them from being friends, or conversely do we tell the kid that they aren't allowed to go to church to see their friends, that they'll have to wait?

What would you do if you were going to church with your partner every Sunday? Facing some of the issues that I've just mentioned. Tell me, I'd really like to know how you would handle it?

Really, I don't think a child should be exposed to that. Even the 'it's only fun and games' sunday school kind of thing. I'm sorry, but the whole thing of exposing a child to do that just makes me feel uncomfortable. You're forcing another person to go with you and to take on your beliefs and they do't have the choice. If little Jimmy said 'no I don't want to go' you'd still take him anyway, unless he was ill.

Why should a person not be friends with someone becaue of what their parents believe? That's a rather silly notion.

Now, we get to what I'd do. (Which is a good question.) Hypothetically, if I had a kid and me and my partner were both of the same faith what would I do. Well first and foremot, my child would come first. Since going to church is an entirely option part of religious belief (not a requirement) I do not have to attend. As such, this is what I would do.

Me and my partner would take turns to go to church, with one us staying at home and spending time with the child. This would mean that we, as parents, could bond with the child more. Since most parents work five days a week I would actually value spending quality time with my child rather than go to church. Kids grow so fast I'd not want to miss a part of my kid's life for church.

Teaching of religious beliefs would be along the same lines as I said I'd do. I'd not expose them to my own beliefs, although they'd know we belonged to a faith, I would not apply any pressure on that child to join me in that faith. Again, my love for that child would completely overide any desire to push them into my belief.

Once they reached a certain age, I'd give them the option to learn about my belief. That would be completely thir choice. If they said no, I'd not bring it up again unless they did. If they said yes, I'd tell them they would be under no obligation to follow me and if they want me to stop any time or are uninterested I would do so. If they then wanted to attend church with me (or my partner) they would be able to do so but again, they'd be under no obligation to go again if they did not want to.

Other than that, I'd teach them the same general things I would any other. Basic right and wrong, the fact that other people are different and basic realities.

(Of course, assuming I'd be christian, I'd not buy into some of the beliefs. ie much of the nature of sin, only christians go to heaven, that homosexuality is a sin and, as such I'dno teach them to my child.)

I'd never advocate using my beliefs in that manner, so to me it doesn't scare me.

That's good at least. Not that I said you would.

Edited June 3, 2013 by shadowhive

[+Paranoid Android]

That's the problem. It's a subjective, not objective love.

All love is subjective.

Your rights are all well and good, but the child has rights and I don't see how shoving your beliefs at them is respecting their rights.

A child has the right to be taught what the parent believes to be true.

Really, I don't think a child should be exposed to that. Even the 'it's only fun and games' sunday school kind of thing. I'm sorry, but the whole thing of exposing a child to do that just makes me feel uncomfortable. You're forcing another person to go with you and to take on your beliefs and they do't have the choice. If little Jimmy said 'no I don't want to go' you'd still take him anyway, unless he was ill.

Why should a person not be friends with someone becaue of what their parents believe? That's a rather silly notion.

What I meant was, if my child went to school and met someone who's parents go to the same church I do, if they became friends then what happens if they want to play with their friends on Sunday? Can I simply say "no, Jimmy, those kids are going somewhere I don't want you to go". What if one of their friends has a birthday party and they choose to hold it at the church building, do I stop them from attending because I know the parents are going to hold prayer before cake, or praise God during a speech, or God-forbid (pun intended) use the opportunity to give a quick sermon on Jesus (I know several birthdays that have gone that exact approach to evangelise to non-Christian friends attending)? How do I tell my child that I can't let them go to their best friend's birthday because of this?

As to the matter of Jimmy saying "no, I don't want to go", then depending on what age he is I may very well allow him to stay home and make his own choice. In practical terms, a young person is allowed to legally get a job at the age of 14 and 9 months in Australia (technically there is no legal age, but most employers use this as a guide, based on the fact that door-to-door sales has the 14 and 9 month limit). I'd probably say that's a fair age that they can start making their own decision about attending church. After that age, they can do whatever they want on Sunday. But before that, I think they'll just have to accept "my house, my rules". Of course, I may not be so dogmatic, if they were 14 and seven months or 14 and 3 months, I'd consider relenting early. But that's my general age suggestion.

Now, we get to what I'd do. (Which is a good question.) Hypothetically, if I had a kid and me and my partner were both of the same faith what would I do. Well first and foremot, my child would come first. Since going to church is an entirely option part of religious belief (not a requirement) I do not have to attend. As such, this is what I would do.

Me and my partner would take turns to go to church, with one us staying at home and spending time with the child. This would mean that we, as parents, could bond with the child more. Since most parents work five days a week I would actually value spending quality time with my child rather than go to church. Kids grow so fast I'd not want to miss a part of my kid's life for church.

Teaching of religious beliefs would be along the same lines as I said I'd do. I'd not expose them to my own beliefs, although they'd know we belonged to a faith, I would not apply any pressure on that child to join me in that faith. Again, my love for that child would completely overide any desire to push them into my belief.

Once they reached a certain age, I'd give them the option to learn about my belief. That would be completely thir choice. If they said no, I'd not bring it up again unless they did. If they said yes, I'd tell them they would be under no obligation to follow me and if they want me to stop any time or are uninterested I would do so. If they then wanted to attend church with me (or my partner) they would be able to do so but again, they'd be under no obligation to go again if they did not want to.

Other than that, I'd teach them the same general things I would any other. Basic right and wrong, the fact that other people are different and basic realities.

(Of course, assuming I'd be christian, I'd not buy into some of the beliefs. ie much of the nature of sin, only christians go to heaven, that homosexuality is a sin and, as such I'dno teach them to my child.)

I figured that would be the most likely thing you'd do. However, one of the big points about Christianity (and particularly church) is that it is a family affair. I'd want my wife with me as we learn together, and that would also mean I want my children there also. I do not believe that we should "take turns" going to church. That is not a biblical or theologically sound approach. That's my opinion, though (based on the Bible's words, it tells us to train up godly children and that means to not teach my child my beliefs would be to disobey a direct command by God).

You said church is "optional". I don't normally quote scripture, but consider Hebrews 10:25 - "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing. Instead let us encourage one another, and all the more as we see the Day approaching". I'd say attending a church is a requirement of righteous living. It doesn't have to be a specific church. The word "church" refers to a gathering of believers, so I could meet regularly at someone's house to read the Bible and worship God and that would be "church". But churches do provide an easily accessible group of believers at a set time and place every week.

Your comment on giving us "bonding time" is valid. However, church encompasses only a short time each Sunday (two hours at most). There's plenty of time for us before or after to bond as a family, not just one of us, but both mother and father.

That's good at least. Not that I said you would.

I know

[shadowhive]

All love is subjective.

If I fall in love with someon, that love is subjective in that we'd be the ones experiencing it.

But you could see that love. You'd see that the person I was in love was real and you couldn't deny it or belief it wasn't so.

A child has the right to be taught what the parent believes to be true.

That's not the rights of the parent, not the child. In that situation the child has no rights.

What I meant was, if my child went to school and met someone who's parents go to the same church I do, if they became friends then what happens if they want to play with their friends on Sunday? Can I simply say "no, Jimmy, those kids are going somewhere I don't want you to go". What if one of their friends has a birthday party and they choose to hold it at the church building, do I stop them from attending because I know the parents are going to hold prayer before cake, or praise God during a speech, or God-forbid (pun intended) use the opportunity to give a quick sermon on Jesus (I know several birthdays that have gone that exact approach to evangelise to non-Christian friends attending)? How do I tell my child that I can't let them go to their best friend's birthday because of this?

If your kid made friends at school with kids of other religion and they wanted to play with them on Sunday you'd deny them the chance to play with them by taking them to your church. Likewise if they were friends with the children of atheist or pagan parents (or any other belief/non-belief that has no weekly meetings). You'd say to them "no, Jimmy, those kids are going somewhere I don't want you to go" wouldn't you?

Wow. Parents actually use their kids birthdays to do that? Seriously? That is just... wow.

As to the matter of Jimmy saying "no, I don't want to go", then depending on what age he is I may very well allow him to stay home and make his own choice. In practical terms, a young person is allowed to legally get a job at the age of 14 and 9 months in Australia (technically there is no legal age, but most employers use this as a guide, based on the fact that door-to-door sales has the 14 and 9 month limit). I'd probably say that's a fair age that they can start making their own decision about attending church. After that age, they can do whatever they want on Sunday. But before that, I think they'll just have to accept "my house, my rules". Of course, I may not be so dogmatic, if they were 14 and seven months or 14 and 3 months, I'd consider relenting early. But that's my general age suggestion.

That's a rather strange age. Is there any reason why it's not rounded up to 15? I can't say I've ever heard something that uses anything like that, so I'm really curious.

As to the 'my house my rules attitude' well, I think religion is one thing where that doesn't hold much merit.

I figured that would be the most likely thing you'd do. However, one of the big points about Christianity (and particularly church) is that it is a family affair. I'd want my wife with me as we learn together, and that would also mean I want my children there also. I do not believe that we should "take turns" going to church. That is not a biblical or theologically sound approach. That's my opinion, though (based on the Bible's words, it tells us to train up godly children and that means to not teach my child my beliefs would be to disobey a direct command by God).

You guessed correctly. You asked what I do, and I told you.

I'll be blunt. In such a scenario, my family would come first. That is me, my partner and, most importantly, my child. They would mean far more to me than what the bible has to say ever would. So if I was a believer you could say the bible says this until you're blue in the face, but I just wouldn't do it. i could not bring myself to do it.

You said church is "optional". I don't normally quote scripture, but consider Hebrews 10:25 - "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing. Instead let us encourage one another, and all the more as we see the Day approaching". I'd say attending a church is a requirement of righteous living. It doesn't have to be a specific church. The word "church" refers to a gathering of believers, so I could meet regularly at someone's house to read the Bible and worship God and that would be "church". But churches do provide an easily accessible group of believers at a set time and place every week.

Having a child requires some level of adaption. During the early days and weeks of my child's life, you would not be able to get me to go to church even if I believed. I would want to be there for that formative time. If my partner was a woman and gave birth, you certainly wouldn't expect her to come in to church so soon after childbirth (nor would you close to the due date either). If my child was sick, I would likewise not want to leave it to go to church. My priority would be caring for my child. Is that such a strange notion?

In my opinion men aren't involved enough in their children's lives. So I would not waste the opportunity. This may, of course, partly come from me not knowing my own father and desiring to give my child the opportunity I never had.

Likewise if I was sick, I'd not force myself to go to church. If someone I loved was dying, I'd not force myself to go to church and so on. So as you can see there's many understandable reasons why aperson would not attend weekly and you'd not hold it against them.

I'd hope that my congregation would be able to see why I wouldn't attend during those things and both understand and respect my decision.

Meeting on Sunday is something some believers do, but not all. It's all a matter of preference. Some go to church every week, some don't go at all and some go wheenever they choose.

'Righteous' living also is a matter of defintition.

Your comment on giving us "bonding time" is valid. However, church encompasses only a short time each Sunday (two hours at most). There's plenty of time for us before or after to bond as a family, not just one of us, but both mother and father.

If given the choice between going to church and bonding with my child, even as a believer I'd pick my child. Many people that go to church have to also travel there, so even if the session itself is only 2 hours, with travel time it can become closer to three. To be honest, that seems too long not to be fully bonding when we have the chance to do so. Of course, in the afternon we'd bond as a family.

It's actually been strange to think about what I'd do if I had a child though, not a bad strange but an.. .odd one. In that I can't see myself with a child any time soon (and I can't see myself being a believer anytime soon either) and yet.... I could clearly see what I'd do. That's really stange isn't it? Especially as, until you put that question I'd not put much thought to it.

[+Paranoid Android]

If I fall in love with someon, that love is subjective in that we'd be the ones experiencing it.

But you could see that love. You'd see that the person I was in love was real and you couldn't deny it or belief it wasn't so.

Fair enough, I still know Jesus' love is real.

That's not the rights of the parent, not the child. In that situation the child has no rights.

Let us just agree to disagree, shall we.

If your kid made friends at school with kids of other religion and they wanted to play with them on Sunday you'd deny them the chance to play with them by taking them to your church. Likewise if they were friends with the children of atheist or pagan parents (or any other belief/non-belief that has no weekly meetings). You'd say to them "no, Jimmy, those kids are going somewhere I don't want you to go" wouldn't you?

Wow. Parents actually use their kids birthdays to do that? Seriously? That is just... wow.

Fair comment. They'd be able to visit their non-Christian friends after church, though, if that was what they wished. And yes, the same argument can be used for the Christian friends too, that they can meet after church. But why, if they can meet AT church then they can spend time with their friends and leave time to do family stuff the rest of the day. It may even lead to situations where the kids tell my child what they did at Sunday School, and perhaps put him in the awkward place of explaining why I don't let him go.

That's a rather strange age. Is there any reason why it's not rounded up to 15? I can't say I've ever heard something that uses anything like that, so I'm really curious.

As to the 'my house my rules attitude' well, I think religion is one thing where that doesn't hold much merit.

When I was a child at school, that's what we were told. I googled it to confirm, and apparently only door-to-door salesmen have a 14+9 rule. Some other professions, like professional modelling has an age restriction to 16. Don't ask me where the 14+9 became official, it's just is what it is.

And while you don't think it holds merit with religion, I obviously do. Again we may just have to agree to disagree.

You guessed correctly. You asked what I do, and I told you.

I'll be blunt. In such a scenario, my family would come first. That is me, my partner and, most importantly, my child. They would mean far more to me than what the bible has to say ever would. So if I was a believer you could say the bible says this until you're blue in the face, but I just wouldn't do it. i could not bring myself to do it.

To me, they would be rather equal, though God does (or at least should) come first. I'm not sure whether I could do that in practical terms, considering how dearly I would love to have a child, I'd probably love it more even without meaning to. However, in saying that, because I treat church AS a family affair, I would still be putting my family in the frame by taking them to church with me.

Having a child requires some level of adaption. During the early days and weeks of my child's life, you would not be able to get me to go to church even if I believed. I would want to be there for that formative time. If my partner was a woman and gave birth, you certainly wouldn't expect her to come in to church so soon after childbirth (nor would you close to the due date either). If my child was sick, I would likewise not want to leave it to go to church. My priority would be caring for my child. Is that such a strange notion?

In my opinion men aren't involved enough in their children's lives. So I would not waste the opportunity. This may, of course, partly come from me not knowing my own father and desiring to give my child the opportunity I never had.

Likewise if I was sick, I'd not force myself to go to church. If someone I loved was dying, I'd not force myself to go to church and so on. So as you can see there's many understandable reasons why aperson would not attend weekly and you'd not hold it against them.

I'd hope that my congregation would be able to see why I wouldn't attend during those things and both understand and respect my decision.

I agree, there are certain times when you can't get to church. But I do believe it is a Christian's responsibility to meet with other Christians at least once a week (I say "at least" because this is the bare minimum I would expect, ideally there would be social gatherings regularly, plus a midweek Bible Study I think is important). But as noted, sometimes it's just not tenable - if my wife was near pregnancy I would not expect her to go, nor would I expect her back in the pews two days after the birth. Neither would I expect myself to go under these circumstances. I would also expect to not go if my child was sick (or if I was sick), that's just plain common sense. But to set up a system where one of us skips every second Sunday, I cannot accept that.

Meeting on Sunday is something some believers do, but not all. It's all a matter of preference. Some go to church every week, some don't go at all and some go wheenever they choose.

'Righteous' living also is a matter of defintition.

I'll invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy and say a true Christian goes to church regularly. It's hard to see a proper Christian ignoring the words of the Bible and shunning the gathering of like-minded believers.

If given the choice between going to church and bonding with my child, even as a believer I'd pick my child.

If that was the choice I was levelled with, I'd probably do the same. However, I don't see any reason why I can't take my child with me. But again, we've been over this.

Many people that go to church have to also travel there, so even if the session itself is only 2 hours, with travel time it can become closer to three. To be honest, that seems too long not to be fully bonding when we have the chance to do so. Of course, in the afternon we'd bond as a family.

It's actually been strange to think about what I'd do if I had a child though, not a bad strange but an.. .odd one. In that I can't see myself with a child any time soon (and I can't see myself being a believer anytime soon either) and yet.... I could clearly see what I'd do. That's really stange isn't it? Especially as, until you put that question I'd not put much thought to it.

Most services I've been to don't go anywhere near 2 hours. My church is one of the longer ones I go to, and lasts approximately 75 minutes. Other churches I've been to usually go for about 55-60 minutes, and they manage this by cutting the sermon down to about 8 minutes (nowhere near long enough for proper theological exegesis, in my opinion). The 2 hours was inclusive of travel time and was an upper estimate (my church is a ten minute walk around the corner, 30 seconds if I take the car). Though it didn't take into consideration socialising after church. My church, for example, provides lunch after church (we start at 11, finish at 12:15, lunch gets served around 12:30'ish). During this time families interact with other families, friends interact with friends, parents play with their kids, all that kind of hype.

I wish I could have children. It's up there on my life goals, but unfortunately without a wife I don't see it happening any time in the near future.

[Bluefinger]

Well back the OP, I think it is great that the pope said ehat he said. I think it merits him the title pope (to a degree) although he thinks himself just a priest.

Its sad that the theological board contradicted him but that is to be expected. When heaven and hell are taken out of the picture, the kingdom of God becomes more about here on earth at the present moment. The promises of Abraham.

[shadowhive]

Let us just agree to disagree, shall we.

I can't really do that since children are involved. But I won't say anything further.

Fair comment. They'd be able to visit their non-Christian friends after church, though, if that was what they wished. And yes, the same argument can be used for the Christian friends too, that they can meet after church. But why, if they can meet AT church then they can spend time with their friends and leave time to do family stuff the rest of the day. It may even lead to situations where the kids tell my child what they did at Sunday School, and perhaps put him in the awkward place of explaining why I don't let him go.

That arguement can be used both ways can't it and really depends on friendships. You could say why not let them spend time with friends and instead throw them into Sunday School with people who they may not like to satisfy a need which, let's face it, is completely selfish on your part.

Why should it be the child's responibility to tell others why you, the parent, don't let them do something?

When I was a child at school, that's what we were told. I googled it to confirm, and apparently only door-to-door salesmen have a 14+9 rule. Some other professions, like professional modelling has an age restriction to 16. Don't ask me where the 14+9 became official, it's just is what it is.

And while you don't think it holds merit with religion, I obviously do. Again we may just have to agree to disagree.

Like i said, it's a rather... odd age to use. it would be interesting to know exactly why such a random age was chosen. (I don't expect you to find out, I'm just so used to ages being considered in round figures.)

Same as above. I'll say no more, but because it involves vulernable eople i won't 'agree to disagree'.

To me, they would be rather equal, though God does (or at least should) come first. I'm not sure whether I could do that in practical terms, considering how dearly I would love to have a child, I'd probably love it more even without meaning to. However, in saying that, because I treat church AS a family affair, I would still be putting my family in the frame by taking them to church with me.

God will also be there though won't he? You child on the other hand needs you as a parent. Jimmy would need you to look after and take care of him and, when you're a parent those needs come before everything else. If god takes issue with you acting on your parental duties, than what sort of go would he be?

I agree, there are certain times when you can't get to church. But I do believe it is a Christian's responsibility to meet with other Christians at least once a week (I say "at least" because this is the bare minimum I would expect, ideally there would be social gatherings regularly, plus a midweek Bible Study I think is important). But as noted, sometimes it's just not tenable - if my wife was near pregnancy I would not expect her to go, nor would I expect her back in the pews two days after the birth. Neither would I expect myself to go under these circumstances. I would also expect to not go if my child was sick (or if I was sick), that's just plain common sense. But to set up a system where one of us skips every second Sunday, I cannot accept that.

It's good that you see there are such times when it's untenable. Life (and reality) gets in the way and makes such conditions untenable. Expecting people to go to church weekly should be tempered with the reality of human life. Same with the midweek bible study, prior comitments (ie a person that works the hours the study would take place) could make such a thing difficult or impossible for them to attend. Would you hold that against someone?

That would be unacceptable to you but it would be my choice. What would you do? Oust me and my partner from your church? Try and force me to come weekly? Try and force me to bring my child against my will?

I'll invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy and say a true Christian goes to church regularly. It's hard to see a proper Christian ignoring the words of the Bible and shunning the gathering of like-minded believers.

Alright, let's give some examples here. If someone is paralysed and bedidden, are they not a 'true'' christian for not attending? If someone has Alzeimer's and needs constant care and supervision are they not a 'true' christian for not attenting? Is a research in the amazon rainforest not a 'true' christian for not attending? It's not that hard to see a 'proper' christian being in a situation where they could not attend.

A christian chooses which church, if any, to go to. Christians choose how to practice christianity. Sometimes they are limited by circumstance, sometimes they make the choice themselves. But always it's their choice. It's your choice to go weekly, to judge christians that don't just comes off as a little petty.

If that was the choice I was levelled with, I'd probably do the same. However, I don't see any reason why I can't take my child with me. But again, we've been over this.

Taking them with you and dumping them in the sunday school is not the same as having quality time with them.

Most services I've been to don't go anywhere near 2 hours. My church is one of the longer ones I go to, and lasts approximately 75 minutes. Other churches I've been to usually go for about 55-60 minutes, and they manage this by cutting the sermon down to about 8 minutes (nowhere near long enough for proper theological exegesis, in my opinion). The 2 hours was inclusive of travel time and was an upper estimate (my church is a ten minute walk around the corner, 30 seconds if I take the car). Though it didn't take into consideration socialising after church. My church, for example, provides lunch after church (we start at 11, finish at 12:15, lunch gets served around 12:30'ish). During this time families interact with other families, friends interact with friends, parents play with their kids, all that kind of hype.

I wish I could have children. It's up there on my life goals, but unfortunately without a wife I don't see it happening any time in the near future.

Well it's good to have that clarity with the length now. Still, I can't say I'm comfotable with the idea of taking children to such places, especially my own.

I've not held a particular wish for childen. I'd like to have one at some point. When I'm ready and in a committed relationship, but it'd be between us when we had one. I'd not be pushy and I'm thankful I don't have a religion to use to pressure the other person into giving me a child.

[+Sherapy]

If I fall in love with someon, that love is subjective in that we'd be the ones experiencing it.

But you could see that love. You'd see that the person I was in love was real and you couldn't deny it or belief it wasn't so.

That's not the rights of the parent, not the child. In that situation the child has no rights.

If your kid made friends at school with kids of other religion and they wanted to play with them on Sunday you'd deny them the chance to play with them by taking them to your church. Likewise if they were friends with the children of atheist or pagan parents (or any other belief/non-belief that has no weekly meetings). You'd say to them "no, Jimmy, those kids are going somewhere I don't want you to go" wouldn't you?

Wow. Parents actually use their kids birthdays to do that? Seriously? That is just... wow.

That's a rather strange age. Is there any reason why it's not rounded up to 15? I can't say I've ever heard something that uses anything like that, so I'm really curious.

As to the 'my house my rules attitude' well, I think religion is one thing where that doesn't hold much merit.

You guessed correctly. You asked what I do, and I told you.

I'll be blunt. In such a scenario, my family would come first. That is me, my partner and, most importantly, my child. They would mean far more to me than what the bible has to say ever would. So if I was a believer you could say the bible says this until you're blue in the face, but I just wouldn't do it. i could not bring myself to do it.

Having a child requires some level of adaption. During the early days and weeks of my child's life, you would not be able to get me to go to church even if I believed. I would want to be there for that formative time. If my partner was a woman and gave birth, you certainly wouldn't expect her to come in to church so soon after childbirth (nor would you close to the due date either). If my child was sick, I would likewise not want to leave it to go to church. My priority would be caring for my child. Is that such a strange notion?

In my opinion men aren't involved enough in their children's lives. So I would not waste the opportunity. This may, of course, partly come from me not knowing my own father and desiring to give my child the opportunity I never had.

Likewise if I was sick, I'd not force myself to go to church. If someone I loved was dying, I'd not force myself to go to church and so on. So as you can see there's many understandable reasons why aperson would not attend weekly and you'd not hold it against them.

I'd hope that my congregation would be able to see why I wouldn't attend during those things and both understand and respect my decision.

Meeting on Sunday is something some believers do, but not all. It's all a matter of preference. Some go to church every week, some don't go at all and some go wheenever they choose.

'Righteous' living also is a matter of defintition.

If given the choice between going to church and bonding with my child, even as a believer I'd pick my child. Many people that go to church have to also travel there, so even if the session itself is only 2 hours, with travel time it can become closer to three. To be honest, that seems too long not to be fully bonding when we have the chance to do so. Of course, in the afternon we'd bond as a family.

It's actually been strange to think about what I'd do if I had a child though, not a bad strange but an.. .odd one. In that I can't see myself with a child any time soon (and I can't see myself being a believer anytime soon either) and yet.... I could clearly see what I'd do. That's really stange isn't it? Especially as, until you put that question I'd not put much thought to it.

I for one hope you do have kids one day, as a veteran parent what stands out about you for me is the thought you put into things. I like how you really think about everything not just from your pov but what really is best, you show such a humbleness, shadow. And IMO good parenting begins with humbleness. oy vey, I still find ways to be better and grow and learn and my youngest is soon to be 16. For what ever it is worth you would be a great father kiddo.

[+Paranoid Android]

That arguement can be used both ways can't it and really depends on friendships. You could say why not let them spend time with friends and instead throw them into Sunday School with people who they may not like to satisfy a need which, let's face it, is completely selfish on your part.

My children will get along with everyone (yes, that's a rosy view, but it's been my experience that people who grow up in Sunday School together are friends all the way through High School and beyond).

Why should it be the child's responibility to tell others why you, the parent, don't let them do something?

If they ask my son or daughter why they weren't at Sunday School, they'll just say "dad won't let me". And all the while the kids will then up and tell my child what they did anyway, what they learned, and whether they had fun. I wonder, if after hearing about fun and games, would my son ASK me if they could go? Would I be morally wrong to say no to them if that happened, just because they were young and impressionable?

God will also be there though won't he? You child on the other hand needs you as a parent. Jimmy would need you to look after and take care of him and, when you're a parent those needs come before everything else. If god takes issue with you acting on your parental duties, than what sort of go would he be?

And why can't I have both? Why are you making it out like I'm choosing one over the other? To quote Mother Superior from The Sound of Music - "just because you love this man doesn't mean you love God less".

It's good that you see there are such times when it's untenable. Life (and reality) gets in the way and makes such conditions untenable. Expecting people to go to church weekly should be tempered with the reality of human life. Same with the midweek bible study, prior comitments (ie a person that works the hours the study would take place) could make such a thing difficult or impossible for them to attend. Would you hold that against someone?

That would be unacceptable to you but it would be my choice. What would you do? Oust me and my partner from your church? Try and force me to come weekly? Try and force me to bring my child against my will?

I'd probably encourage you to bring your child. I wouldn't oust you from the church, but I would not feel like you were doing what is in the best interest of the child. But as already discussed, we've been over that (I believe it's the right thing to do, you do not). And no, I wouldn't hold it against someone if they couldn't make Bible Study. I'm just saying it's a good thing to do, I didn't state it as a requirement for being Christian.

Alright, let's give some examples here. If someone is paralysed and bedidden, are they not a 'true'' christian for not attending? If someone has Alzeimer's and needs constant care and supervision are they not a 'true' christian for not attenting? Is a research in the amazon rainforest not a 'true' christian for not attending? It's not that hard to see a 'proper' christian being in a situation where they could not attend.

A christian chooses which church, if any, to go to. Christians choose how to practice christianity. Sometimes they are limited by circumstance, sometimes they make the choice themselves. But always it's their choice. It's your choice to go weekly, to judge christians that don't just comes off as a little petty.

Ahh, extreme examples. Let's be honest. Most people aren't bedridden. Most people aren't incapacitated by Alzheimer's. Most people aren't in isolated research laboratories. I'm simply saying that if a person can go, and chooses not to, and chooses not to on a regular basis, they aren't honouring the words of Hebrews 10:25. This casts doubt on their commitment to Jesus' teachings. Therefore, they may be saved, but when they might just get a shock if Jesus decides to say "begone from me evildoer, I never knew you".

Taking them with you and dumping them in the sunday school is not the same as having quality time with them.

They're in Sunday School for all of 40 minutes (they are with us for the beginning of service, then when the sermon starts they go over to the other building an come back just before the end of the service). Then the rest of the day they spend with family and/or friends. That's quality time right there if you're out in the lot playing games with your child.

I'd not be pushy and I'm thankful I don't have a religion to use to pressure the other person into giving me a child.

Honestly, I've wanted children for years, so I just hope that my future partner feels the same way, otherwise it will be a major issue. My reasons for wanting kids are admittedly selfish, my belief that God wants us to procreate doesn't really bear on my choice, it's just an added point.

[shadowhive]

I for one hope you do have kids one day, as a veteran parent what stands out about you for me is the thought you put into things. I like how you really think about everything not just from your pov but what really is best, you show such a humbleness, shadow. And IMO good parenting begins with humbleness. oy vey, I still find ways to be better and grow and learn and my youngest is soon to be 16. For what ever it is worth you would be a great father kiddo.

Aww really? Thanks, that means a lot coming from you

Yeah, I've heard from other parents that kid are a real learning experience. Just when you think you know everything, bam something else comes along.

Well I hope your kids know how lucky they are to have someone like you as their mother, because I'd be sure proud if you were mine

[Beckys_Mom]

In my opinion, go around the corner from the Opera House, visit the Botanic Gardens, much more beautiful. The Opera House seems to be the primary tourist spot for non-Aussies. Maybe I just take it for granted because I've seen it a million times (in High School I participated in the Winter Sleepout and camped out for a night at the foot of the Opera House), but the Botanic Gardens are simply gorgeous. They don't get anywhere near the tourist Press I think they deserve.

Theme parks - we have Luna Park. And there are plans of building a Wet-n-wild in Penrith (about an hour West of Sydney central). Other than that all the great theme parks are up in Queensland (Warner Brothers Movie World, Dream World, Sea World, another Wet-n-Wild). We used to have Australia's Wonderland but it closed down nearly 10 years ago.

If Becky's in for science museums, the best I can think of is probably the Powerhouse Museum. She'd love it there.

I checked those out earlier today PA, those look great..My kids would enjoy them and as would we lol.. Been to Sea World a few times it is magic..The WB movie land is pretty much like Islands of Adventure at Universal Studios Florida.I liked the look of the Superman roller coaster and my kids are fans of Looney Toons..... While I was checking out the pages you posted, I had a bit more time and managed to find so much more in Sydney to go and see.. I came across another great theme park - Dreamworld.. It has the Tower Of Terror, I think Disney has that also.. My daughter saw it advertised on TV she is itching to go on it..It looks too scary for me !!!.....The hotels look great too..Plenty of activities that can take up a lot of time, but time worth spending.. I would also love to go and do a lot of sight seeing in Australia too. even go on a camping trip.....It would be great to spend a month or so there...

Thanks for the links PA

Edited June 3, 2013 by Beckys_Mom