Raising a Child as an Atheist

[Rocky]

 

[WordWolf]

On 10/19/2023 at 9:18 AM, Stayed Too Long said:

Hebrews 10:17
Then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Going to the bible one can pull a verse to prove just about anything.
WW’s verse is quite damning and declares it would be better for a person to die than cause a little one to sin.

My two verses show a God that is very forgiving, and willing to forgive all indiscretions. 
 

I guess it all depends on how you might feel on any given day. Do you want to come down hard on someone, or is your plan to exercise discretion and treat the sinner gently?

You can choose A,B, or C, or all of the above. 

 

I think it IS true, no matter who said it, that pulling one verse out and isolating it from its context can make it appear to say the opposite of what it actually said.

(The same is true of all literature.  "Now is the winter of our discontent" is taken to mean that the speaker is now unhappy.  The sentence read "Now is the winter of our discontent MADE GLORIOUS SUMMER by this sun of York." So, the speaker was now HAPPY.)

As for Matthew 18: 6-7, the context doesn't affect the meaning- so the most obvious reading of those verses is what I said it was, as just about anyone can see if they try honestly.  (My condolences to those whose reading abilities aren't up to that task, or for reading my posts for that matter.)

As for I John 1:9,  even the quoted verse makes it clear that the forgiveness is dependent upon the sinner CONFESSING.  The context spells out that it's about the sinner repenting- since the preceding and especially following chapter go into how a follower of Jesus is to do what he says, and that we have an advocate in Jesus if and when we sin.   

So, those verses don't contradict to me.  Those people like vpw who cause the "little ones" to stumble don't do one act in one instant- they set up plans and elaborate snares- like vpw did.   These aren't people who are sorry for hurting others- they may get sorry FOR GETTING CAUGHT, but not for sinning. So, the forgiveness of I John 1:9 has nothing to do with them.  That's for a sincere follower who slips, not an evil plagiarizing rapist whose main regrets are either getting caught, or regrets he couldn't rape MORE.

Hebrews 10 is a much more complicated matter. Hebrews 10:17 is part of a passage contrasting the Mosaic Law and the post-Pentecostal covenant.

"16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD : I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says,17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."

In fact, if you keep reading the chapter, what sounded like Christians getting a blank check on sinning sounds like nothing of the kind.

26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

So far, it's all fairly consistent. The follower who stumbles and repents gets forgiveness, and the one who claims to be a follower but causes the followers themselves to stumble aren't followers- so they don't repent and they don't get forgiveness. I find that comforting, but not everyone would. Certainly someone like vpw who caused the little ones to stumble wouldn't like it, but they won't repent of the evil of their actions, either.

 

[Rocky]

What happens when society stops worshipping God?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zuckerman 

https://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/phil-zuckerman/

[Rocky]

Not that the way I look at the issue matters to anyone (no homework assignment here  ) but I see the question of raising a child as an atheist is a question distinct from but still sort of related to morality without religion.

[Raf]

Lots of good stuff on this thread. Thank you all. Rocky, I watched the Sagan video and I was glad to see it. I've often had similar thoughts when confronted with the idea of how the universe appeared out of "nothing." I see no evidence that the universe was ever in a state of "nothing" by any philosophical definition, and the definition in physics is something I fail to grasp. I trust that physicists know physics better than I do, so when someone like Lawrence Krauss (sp?) discusses the subject, I feel compelled to yield to his expertise even though it sounds ad hoc to me.

All of which is to say, I do not believe the universe was ever in a state of "nothing" to begin with, and I am just as justified and making that presumption as a theist is in saying "well God exists outside of time and space and matter." You have to establish that there is such a thing as "outside of time and space and matter" to make such an assertion, and you can't. It's beyond our capability as human beings with brains.

I do see, however, that part of this discussion has looked at the issue of morality, being and doing good. I had a rather clumsy thread about the subject a few years ago called "Are you more moral than Yahweh?" The thread became problematic, as is sometimes the case (especially with my hothead). But it was a good dive into a complicated question that, at least to me, has a simple resolution once you realize the "trick" that is being attempted.

And this goes directly to teaching children about morality. We teach children that they are always being watched. By their parents, by their teachers, by Santa Claus, by God. This is our way of modifying their behavior by suggesting that there will be some accountability for their actions. With children, well, they really ARE being watched almost all the time. So at some point, a mature person must wrestle with the realization that there are times when they are NOT being watched. Morality is our capacity to do the right thing when we are NOT being watched.

Religion, in my view, robs us of this avenue of growth by insisting there is never a time we are not being watched and that all of our actions will either be penalized or rewarded. 

And those of us who do not believe in a deity are chastised because we do not believe in (what they call) "objective morality."

That's the trick. To get people to subscribe to "objective morality" and then to assert that such a thing is impossible without a God.

I agree: Objective morality is impossible without a God.

I also do not believe there is a God (certainly not a relevant one to this discussion: a deist God might as well not exist so I don't spend much time thinking about his preferences).

So I believe objective morality is impossible.

Of COURSE it's impossible.

Objective morality is as pointless as "objective beauty." There is no such thing. Finding something "beautiful" is an opinion. You and I may both recognize that Jennifer Love Hewitt is more beautiful than, say, Kathy Griffin, but that does not make our assertion objectively true, no matter how much we may think it is.

The fact that something is subjectively true does not make it any less true! And that's what religion fails to understand about the nature of morality. The fact that morality is subjective does not make it less binding or less true, especially when you BASE your morality on a value that other humans share. [The opposite is also true: The fact that masses of people subjectively think something is moral does not make it so, even if their holy book says it is].

For the atheist, morality is a system of value judgments, and value judgments are inherently subjective. For the humanist, the best moral system of value judgments confers the greatest good to the greatest number of people without causing any or much corresponding, avoidable harm. We would never sacrifice a virgin to a volcano to please a god and guarantee a bumper crop of corn or tobacco. 

For the theist, the idea that morality is objective and prescribed by a God absolves the individual of the responsibility of making the value judgment by which we decide something is moral. Homosexuality is wrong because God said so end of discussion and if you don't agree then you are immoral. Divorce is wrong because God said so end of discussion. Picking up sticks after sunset on Friday night is an offense worthy of death. I didn't write the book!

I think theists are just as moral as atheists. But I think they are wrong to credit God with their morality. I think most people here are moral DESPITE scripture, not because of it.

And YES, there are scriptures that cause one to aspire to be good. But would you still be good if He were not watching, with His ledger, keeping track, ready to reward you as surely as he's ready to punish those who defy Him?

I submit that you would. Just as I submit you would dismiss scriptures that conflict with your personal morality. You would (and do) find some way to explain "well it was another time" and "that was necessary then because of their culture," ignoring the fact that He had no problem prohibiting inconsequential things like cheeseburgers.

My wife is Catholic and we are raising our children Catholic. But my younger son knows I am not a believer and we talk often about doing right because it is right, regardless of who is watching, rewarding or punishing.