said... While I am not one of those Christians who try
and beat you over the head with their beliefs, I do stand firm to my
Ok. I'm not one of those atheists who is trying to take your God from you. I stand firm on my position that the extraordinary requires extraordinary evidence.
I think the problem that most aethiests have is two-fold, first, not unlike me
in my younger years, you can't stand the thought of authority telling you what
should or should not be done. There is a deep seeded resistance, an innate
rebellion, in all of us that defies authority.
This sentence, just by itself, tells me you have no clue why anyone here is an atheist. If that were the only reason someone were an atheist, then their position would be precarious and deserving of examination/skepticism. You have absolutely no clue what I, or anyone else, was like as a child. Therefore, trying to imply similarities is unfounded. I was, at it happens, the "good kid". I have no "deep seeded" rebellion in me. What would I be rebelling from? How could I rebell from something that doesn't exist? To a certain extent, you are correct in your assumption that I enjoy autonomy. The question becomes: What is it that you have against it. You'll contradict yourself later on. But, to sum up this part of you e-mail...you're wrong about why I am an atheist. And,...you're probably wrong about, pretty much, everyone who posts/reads here.
Secondly, again not unlike me, you have probably been exposed, at one time in
your life or another, to "bad regligion." Only in the past 5 years have I
realized that there are probably more churches and "religious" entities that
miss the mark of Jesus than who hit it, probably far more that miss.
Sure. We've all been exposed to bad religions. The problem I see is that I can't see much net good in any of them. They all proclaim to be the "one true church", which means there are thousands of "wrong churches". Almost every sub-sect of Christianity was the jumping off point for a more extreme version of their faith. It's interesting, to me, that you'd be so willing to toss a fellow Christian under the bus because they, in your assessment, "missed the mark on Jesus." It's not their fault we don't believe in God any more than it's YOUR fault. I've better reasons for my atheist position.
I am a Christian who has a spiritual relationship with Christ, I am NOT a
No offense, but...if I had a dollar for everytime I've heard that one. To me, it's the equivalent of trying to pick up a girl by saying, "Come here often?" ;)
Scripted, regimented, legalistic, screaming in your face "religion" is not what
Christ taught and if someone claiming to be a Christian has offended you because
of these types of behaviors, then I apologize.
The problem (aside from the whole lack of evidence for existence of a deity) is that an honest person realizes that they have absolutely no certainty about what Christ did or did not teach. So much of the Christ story is based upon older myths and written a few hundred years after the fact. There are no primary resources. The best you can say is that the Bible contains what other people (with their own agendas and experiences) think Jesus might have said two hundred years before writing it down.
Christians should hate the sin, love the sinner, and that's what I attempt to
Do you not see how totally condescending that statement is? As Sean said, "Hating the sin and loving the sinner is an abhorrent idea. It allows you to hate a part of a person, but make yourself feel good, excuse yourself from bigotry. “I hate what you are but I love you”. "
It's one of the most dysfunctional statements I've ever seen. It's too close to a man saying, "I hit you because I love you, baby." Additionally, if that's the kind of love being offered, then no thanks. I'll pass. Love me for who I am, not for who you want me to (or profess I should) be.
So, with all that said, I would say this to the original comment posted.
Spanking is a personal preference. I think the main key to discipline is having
the child know that you are the parent and you are in charge and what you say goes. It doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't explain why you are doing what you are doing, but it does mean the child should obey.
Wow...all that warm-up to talk about spanking? You're entitled to your opinion. But, I completely and totally disagree with the bolded part of your claim. Parents are not always worthy of respect or adoration. Surely you wouldn't make the claim that an abusive parent is justified in beating their child because the child needsto understand that the abuser is the parent and the victim is the child. See...I think the main key to discipline is to teach your child that there are consequences for every action. Some consequences are wonderful and some are tragic, with many in between. There is no developmental rational for spanking. If your child is old enough to understand consequences, then there's no need to spank. If your child is too young to understand, then it's cruel to spank. Spanking is violent. Put it in a pretty dress and drag it out to Church...it's an act of violence between a child and an adult.
As far as the co-sleeping, the problem I have with it is from a
psychological point of view, not from a sexual perversion aspect. Bonding with a
child is vital to them becoming emotionally healthy adults, so having them close
by in the early months of life is a good thing, but at some point, children need
to develop independence and I do believe that this sleeping arrangement thwarts
I can show you hundreds of studies that invalidate your claims.
Even if on a smaller scale. There is also something to siblings bonding
separate and apart from the bonding with parents, and with all of you in the
same room, it is difficult to have that true bonding.
Do you have a problem with adults who share tents or trailers with their children while camping? What about those who can't afford more than a one bedroom place? No child is forced to sleep in a co-sleeping arrangement in this house. If you'd read a bit more objectively, then you'd have noted that I said co-sleeping is optional and seasonal. No one in this house is forced or required to sleep together. What exactly does "bonding" mean to you? Also, above, you claimed that independence and autonomy from authority was a bad thing. Now you're advocating that independence is the goal. Interesting.
Finally, with regards to the church, baptism, etc. I really seems like most
people in this blog have had bad experiences in the Catholic church. I'm shocked
(sarcasm). The Catholic church has probably done more damage to the Christian
faith than just about anything (maybe other than televangelists)else. I would
just ask you to find a local church that believes in the Bible and Christ, not
in a man or woman, and who loves the sinner and hates the sin. And Sean, we can
all get along if we just respect each other, but at the same time hold true to
our beliefs. God bless everyone and have a great day!
I'm not touching this with a stick...wow. You are really something.