Support NeoGAF

[Wickerbasket]

Christianity does not teach hate against homosexuals. There are plenty of them that allow gay people. There are plenty of Christian families that have gay members that are still loved. Trust me on that. What many don't do is marry them, but even some churches do that including an entire religion. The original misogynistic SOB Christian himself, Paul, preached to gay people. However, Biblically speaking, homosexual acts appear to be a no-no - no argument there.

However, this still doesn't mean that most (like 99%) of churches out there are teaching that violence is the solution to the "gay" problem or that I'm not allowed to befriend them.

I agree with most of your post, but I still feel the church as an organisation should be doing more to accept the gay community. As long as they see homosexuality as a problem to be cured there's going to be friction between the catholic community and the gay community. The pope should just come out and say 'homosexuals are people too' or something. Not shit like this; Pope says humanity needs 'saving' from homosexuality .

 

[Jamesfrom818]

I agree with most of your post, but I still feel the church as an organisation should be doing more to accept the gay community. As long as they see homosexuality as a problem to be cured there's going to be friction between the catholic community and the gay community. The pope should just come out and say 'homosexuals are people too' or something. Not shit like this; Pope says humanity needs 'saving' from homosexuality .

The Pope is also an old ass man that isn't the most in touch with current society. Change comes slow to large institutions. The Roman Catholic Church is as old and large as they come.

 

[Wickerbasket]

The Pope is also an old ass man that isn't the most in touch with current society. Change comes slow to large institutions. The Roman Catholic Church is as old and large as they come.

Yeah, but a couple of billion people see him as their religious leader right now. It only gives people the excuse they need to be complete assholes to people that don't deserve it.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Yeah, but a couple of billion people see him as their religious leader right now. It only gives people the excuse they need to be complete assholes to people that don't deserve it.

Pope Benedict certainly is a step backwards after having Pope John Paul II. Benedict is old though so I don't think he'll be around too long.

 

[JGS]

I agree with most of your post, but I still feel the church as an organisation should be doing more to accept the gay community. As long as they see homosexuality as a problem to be cured there's going to be friction between the catholic community and the gay community. The pope should just come out and say 'homosexuals are people too' or something. Not shit like this; Pope says humanity needs 'saving' from homosexuality .

That's the biggest problem with the Catholic Church IMO, they are too involved in matters that don't really affect them.

My point is that a religion who follows the Bible cannot necessarily say all of a sudden that the Bible is wrong on a particular matter simply because it's the 21st century and people think differently. That's the reason people leave religion, not the reason a religion changes. That is what causes confusion.

Most religious books are not geared to be adaptable because they are supposed to be timeless. Following an old book is part and parcel with the whole religious thing. If the tenets of a particular religion don't allow practicing homosexuals, then homosexuals shouldn't join- even if they are allowed join.

This is where the secular world steps in. I know my views of gay people have changed drastically over the years because society's views have changed. 10 years ago, I was not even aware that gay people wanted to marry much less thinking about it as a possibilty. Now, it makes no sense why they can't. There are plenty of religious folks who want equality for homosexuals. If they weren't there would be no discussion on it & the poll numbers would not look that favorable.

That doesn't mean I expect my religion to allow marriages between gay couples in their orginizations, but that does not mean they will try to stop it outside of the congregation. I am a big believer of seperation of church and state. There is a seperation because religion is extremely biased toward their beliefs which tend to be discriminatory if for no other reason than they feel they are right on the matter. Again, if they are not physically harming someone else, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Wickerbasket]

That's the biggest problem with the Catholic Church IMO, they are too involved in matters that don't really affect them.

My point is that a religion who follows the Bible cannot necessarily say all of a sudden that the Bible is wrong on a particular matter simply because it's the 21st century and people think differently. That's the reason people leave religion, not the reason a religion changes. That is what causes confusion.

Most religious books are not geared to be adaptable because they are supposed to be timeless. Following an old book is part and parcel with the whole religious thing. If the tenets of a particular religion don't allow practicing homosexuals, then homosexuals shouldn't join- even if they are allowed join.

This is where the secular world steps in. I know my views of gay people have changed drastically over the years because society's views have changed. 10 years ago, I was not even aware that gay people wanted to marry much less thinking about it as a possibilty. Now, it makes no sense why they can't. There are plenty of religious folks who want equality for homosexuals. If they weren't there would be no discussion on it & the poll numbers would not look that favorable.

That doesn't mean I expect my religion to allow marriages between gay couples in their orginizations, but that does not mean they will try to stop it outside of the congregation. I am a big believer of seperation of church and state. There is a seperation because religion is extremely biased toward their beliefs which tend to be discriminatory if for no other reason than they feel they are right on the matter. Again, if they are not physically harming someone else, I don't have a problem with that.

Most homosexuals don't get a choice of whether to join. They're born into their religion, they grow being told that being gay is wrong and unnatural. It must be very confusing for gay catholics at the teen stage.

That said, I'd be absolutely fine with religion if it was a choice to be taken at age 16; an age where people are old enough to make such important decisions for themselves.

I don't expect the catholic church to let gay couples marry anytime soon, but the least I'd expect is for them to not portray them as something unnatural, unhuman even. Also, I'd argue that emotional harm can be more harmful and long lasting than physical harm.

But yeah, we're kind of going into a whole other topic completely.

Edit: I agree that, in general, society seems to be moving in the right direction, but I just feel as though religion is holding it back.

 

[Mr Cola]

My advice stands i dont think he should have kids, i think this is one of those "big deal" situations, and it sucks but thats how it is.

 

[zerokoolpsx]

Let the kid decide. One of the reasons why I left Catholicism was the masses. Don't force it on the kid, he'll just hate it.

 

[bigswords]

Let the kid decide. One of the reasons why I left Catholicism was the masses. Don't force it on the kid, he'll just hate it.

Yup Yup Yup......... bingo, when the kid is of a thinking age let's say 16-18 yrs old, let them decide.

I was sent to a catholic Junior college more for study merits but it has a old tradition of non-believers joining them on Sunday Mass (well certain special days) and honestly some parts are pretty nice and decent and is a good environment, but I'm still the same asshole after being sent for national service so I don't see a point in it overall.

 

[Mgoblue201]

This is problematic thinking. The failure rate of religious indoctrination is extremely low, and it is low because they indoctrinate from birth and establish ideas by fiat rather than reason, essentially abusing the same evolved mechanism by which we warn children of life-threatening dangers.

I'm not any kind of behavioral biologist, but it wouldn't surprise me if humans learn completely in reverse. Logic and higher reasoning, of course, are recent evolutionary constructs. Most people begin making judgments about the world before their memory ever finds a solid footing and logic begins to take its course. It's almost unbelievable to me that our minds would have been the product of a designer, whether through a single act of special creation or divinely guided evolution, especially since the religiously and dogmatically motivated are just as capable of relying on past judgments, which have not been evaluated by prudent logic and inevitably effect how one views God. It can seldom be said that God effects one's view of him. How you grow up is usually going to shape your conception of God. It's certainly not divine revelation.

As others in this thread have pointed out, this "indoctrination" of ideas, while powerful, is not the end all be all, because experience is just as powerful of a sculptor of human thought, which is sometimes just as dangerous. We often let emotional experiences override reason, so sometimes someone can switch religions or abandon religion because of "conversion experiences", which are powerful motivators but the wrong motivators.

Arguments, yes. Evidence, no. Again, looking for God's footprints and flaming beard is, in many ways, an error of category. As I said earlier in the thread, treating God like a unicorn or a leprechaun is the rather shallow approach a lot of atheists take to the subject.

When I argue against religion, I always argue against its most sophisticated elements, but those who propose these sophisticated arguments are those who are already intelligent. I would even argue that the best philosophy and theology, ironically, come from the smartest individuals, not even from the holy books themselves. This is an argument against religion itself. Religion is simply an idea that exists in the mind and is constrained by the mind.

Being a "good Christian" doesn't mean that one has a correct idea of God. You can easily find two Christians who hold antithetical or even unsophisticated notions of their religion, and this is true for a lot of Christians. I mean, people still invoke God as if he's a magician who will help you win a sporting event. There are also plenty of nonbelievers who invoke simplistic arguments, but of course in a non-theistic universe, we have our reason alone. However, in a theistic universe, I would not expect a believer who is supposedly in close contact with God to invoke such unsophisticated conceptions of him.

 

[Extollere]

Man I'm so glad I don't have this problem... I actually fretted over this years ago when I was a Christian and my wife an atheist. Good thing I eventually deconverted to atheism. Don't have to worry about how I'm going to raise kids :lol No church. I think they can get a feel for how religion plays positive and negative roles in people's lives without having to live through it.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

Thank you. That's all that I'm trying to say. We've had many pages of nuanced responses in which people have spoke about their experiences with this situation and their own opinions, and we get called childish for not taking on an absolute position that requires the OP to sacrifice his ideals when him and his wife already seem to be on the way to finding a somewhat moderate solution (such as the idea of raising the kid in the Unitarian Universalist faith).

I don't know what you know about Catholics, but in most Catholic families one version of Christianity isn't just as good as another, so going UU is likely not really an option.

The definition of a compromise is that both sides of a dispute make sacrifices to arrive at an agreement. The compromise here is that he would allow his wife to raise the children in the religion of her family and his family, he'd be allowed to teach his ideals to his children as they grow, and unlike every other Catholic family his children would not be expected to just go through with their Confirmation. When his kids are 13 or 14, he and his wife will sit down with his children explain what Confirmation is really all about and his children will be allowed to make the choice for themselves.

 

[devilhawk]

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"

The UU Church idea will likely fail because it does not address the core issue. Many UU Churches have same sex marriage ceremonies. If her extended family is against gay rights and marriage, I highly doubt the family issue will be solved by attending a UU Church and might actually create more trouble. There won't be a compromise where the child goes to a different denomination because to the family it will seem like a loss no matter what denomination it is. Truly, there will not be a way to avoid the family pressure without your child being raised a Catholic.

For me, it helps to hear a bunch of other opinions and have my both sides be questioned from folks who would lean one way or the other.

This thread has made me realize that I need to talk about the family pressure situation with her, as that may be the underlying reason she's so against not raising the child catholic. As I said before, she doesn't go to church at all (although she does say she feels guilty about not going), so it's not like she's super religious herself.

I'm actually pretty happy with the way the thread has gone. Most people have been giving some pretty thoughtful answers. As long as I don't read each post in a bubble, you can see if the person is being reasonable or if they are just trying to slander one way or the other.

I think you need to remember your own beliefs (or lack of) and make sure they carry equal weight. Why is it fair that her viewpoint gets first dibs? Why is it alright for the ultimate choice be made by the child after the fact? Raising the child Catholic actually deprives the child the opportunity to accept religion as the only option is between rejecting religion or keeping the status quo. This is what indoctrination ultimately alludes to.

OP, I would love a response to Mr. B Natural's comments. I shortened the quote a bit. I would love to have your wife's opinions on these comments as well.

Logically speaking, her stance actually makes no sense at all.

1. So, if you don't teach your kid religion then they'll never understand how it can have a role in someone's life?

That makes no sense because the 2 - 12 year old kid will not understand that concept until he is much much older regardless. The kid will get NONE of what she is referring to until the child the teens or even later. An adult understands how religion influences/affects lives. Her child will too many years from now regardless of whether people taught it at an early age or not. Logically, this is an argument against teaching religion to someone that doesn't understand what the overarching purpose is. It's like signing up for a lease before understanding the contract. It's an argument for waiting many years and then showing them about religion at the point that they can understand how it affects your life. At that point, he or she can make a decision whether that does or doesn't have a role in his or her life. Becoming a christian at 21 doesn't mean you missed out. Catholicism isn't gonna change that much from now to then.

2. Not making a choice for them early in life is the same as teaching them that religion has no place in life.

Again, logically this makes no sense unless your kid gonna live under a rock. No. He is going to meet hundreds of christians. He will understand religion a lot more than you think. Logically, your kid living in a predominate christian country with christian cultural will be taught "christian values" regardless. That's right. Your kid will believe in santa claus won't he? He will 'believe' in santa and the tooth fairy? Oh no, your kid has faith without a religious upbringing!? How is that possible?!

4. When the child is old enough to think for themselves, they can decided if religion is right for them or not.

So, why is she making her kid become something before he can decide for himself if he/she wants to be that something or not? So he can decide for himself? Does that make any sense to you? Of course not. She's deciding for the child. That's the point. No spinning can rearrange that.

I understand the choice isn't simple because of external factors that many here at GAF can't relate to. I know that those factors greatly alter the situation from a purely logical discussion.

Truthfully, none of your compromises are acceptable. Some of them aren't even compromises. What is your wife's concession in her proposed option? She agrees not to disown them should they leave the church?

If you chose to stay home the inevitable will happen. If it is currently acceptable to stay home then it must always be acceptable to stay home. If forcing you to attend something you disagree with is the only way the child will attend without reservations, then the reasoning behind what and why the child is attending can be criticized.

 

[Alcoori]

Most homosexuals don't get a choice of whether to join. They're born into their religion, they grow being told that being gay is wrong and unnatural. It must be very confusing for gay catholics at the teen stage.

That said, I'd be absolutely fine with religion if it was a choice to be taken at age 16; an age where people are old enough to make such important decisions for themselves.

I don't expect the catholic church to let gay couples marry anytime soon, but the least I'd expect is for them to not portray them as something unnatural, unhuman even. Also, I'd argue that emotional harm can be more harmful and long lasting than physical harm.

But yeah, we're kind of going into a whole other topic completely.

Edit: I agree that, in general, society seems to be moving in the right direction, but I just feel as though religion is holding it back.

I'm gay and was born and raised as a catholic and their treatment of gays is partly responsible for me becoming an atheist (partly because other issues were factored in of course).
Mind you, I've never been actually told that being gay was a sin and that I would go to hell. No one in my family never said anything like that and I've never heard a bad comment about gay people, ever. My coming out happened very smoothly and I wasn't even the first one so no problems at all.
My grandma is deeply catholic yet she's smart enough to know better than following blindly. She supports gay marriage and adoption and she's 85, she's going to church at least once a week and has tons of crucifix and other religious shit hung around her house.

Thus I can't say I have felt the hate of catholicism against the gay act (btw, wtf is up with this "being gay is ok, having gay sex no"?). However, a couple of my friends are still struggling with the fact that they are religious and that their religion hates them for being who they are and I find it really sad. Parents are torn between what the church tells them and the love they have for their kid. The kids don't understand why god made them that way and why they have to fight this battle. It makes everyone very unhappy and it ruins lives.

On another note, funny anecdote. My parents are friends with this crazy catholic family (hardcore catholics, mass in latin, communion on your knees and the priest is putting the wafer on your tongue directly and shit). Their daughter, catholic herself, got pregnant having pre-marital sex and a month later a big wedding happened.
This is so hypocritical it becomes funny. They're only 21.

 

[iapetus]

Why is it alright for the ultimate choice be made by the child after the fact? Raising the child Catholic actually deprives the child the opportunity to accept religion as the only option is between rejecting religion or keeping the status quo. This is what indoctrination ultimately alludes to.

Because at the end of the day, that's the only choice. It's just a question of whose belief system the child is going to have as the status quo. He's going to be raised as a Catholic or in a secular manner, and one parent believes each of these is the best default state.

The most important thing either way is that the child is brought up to question dogma, to apply his own intelligence, and to make his own choices.

 

[devilhawk]

Because at the end of the day, that's the only choice. It's just a question of whose belief system the child is going to have as the status quo. He's going to be raised as a Catholic or in a secular manner, and one parent believes each of these is the best default state.

The most important thing either way is that the child is brought up to question dogma, to apply his own intelligence, and to make his own choices.

If a child is raised secular it is quite easy to avoid the bashing and negating of religion. Can the reverse be said?

 

[iapetus]

If a child is raised secular it is quite easy to avoid the bashing and negating of religion. Can the reverse be said?

Yes, depending on the particular church they're brought up in. Yes, there are people who would bash atheism, but then as religion GAF demonstrates quite clearly there are people who'd bash religion too.

 

[devilhawk]

Yes, depending on the particular church they're brought up in. Yes, there are people who would bash atheism, but then as religion GAF demonstrates quite clearly there are people who'd bash religion too.

Of course that's true, but those type of people wouldn't be in the OP's position.

 

[iapetus]

Of course that's true, but those type of people wouldn't be in the OP's position.

Nor would the equivalent religious people be in the OP's SO's position.

 

[tahrikmili]

OP: It's time for a divorce.

 

[besada]

Just ran across this and thought it might be interesting for you to see, Rubx. This is what happens when two adults can't reasonably agree to compromise regarding their child's religious upbringing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/joseph-reyes-dad-faces-ja_n_464567.html

Joseph Reyes: Dad Faces Jail For Taking Daughter To Church

Joseph Reyes, who baptized his 3-year-old daughter without his ex-wife's permission, could see jail time after a Cook County judge granted his ex a temporary restraining order barring him from exposing the child to any religion other than Judaism.

 

[Keylime]

Just ran across this and thought it might be interesting for you to see, Rubx. This is what happens when two adults can't reasonably agree to compromise regarding their child's religious upbringing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/joseph-reyes-dad-faces-ja_n_464567.html

Joseph Reyes: Dad Faces Jail For Taking Daughter To Church

What the eff?! :lol

If I ever found out that my wife had been putting our kid through the sacraments without my involvement I don't even know what I'd do...the cops wouldn't get involved by man oh man would that be an awkward conversation.

I need to read the rest of this thread, I see some folks asking good questions that I haven't had a chance to respond to.

 

[FiRez]

if you "lose" this decision, try to inculcate scepticism and intellectual curiosity in your childs, those aren't "belief systems" they are inherent to human nature and what has made us what we are, in the end reason will prevail

 

[iapetus]

whether you "win" or "lose" this decision, try to inculcate scepticism and intellectual curiosity in your childs

Fixed.

 

[grumble]

in the end reason will prevail

Well, you're an optimist.

 

[JGS]

Most homosexuals don't get a choice of whether to join. They're born into their religion, they grow being told that being gay is wrong and unnatural. It must be very confusing for gay catholics at the teen stage.

That said, I'd be absolutely fine with religion if it was a choice to be taken at age 16; an age where people are old enough to make such important decisions for themselves.

I don't expect the catholic church to let gay couples marry anytime soon, but the least I'd expect is for them to not portray them as something unnatural, unhuman even. Also, I'd argue that emotional harm can be more harmful and long lasting than physical harm.

But yeah, we're kind of going into a whole other topic completely.

Edit: I agree that, in general, society seems to be moving in the right direction, but I just feel as though religion is holding it back.

Sorry, post is too long.

In Catholicism, I realize that baptism happens close to birth which is odd to me since Jesus was an adult and there is no record of infant baptism in the Bible. So when I say some stuff, I'm not saying it based on Catholic teaching. I also realize that some countries require a religion which I agree is always a harmful scenario unless God himself is running things which isn't the case.

In any event if you're not religious, that ceremony becomes insignificant and plays no role in life as you get older unless you believe what the Church teaches & then choose to deny it - aka blasphemy. This could be the case for some gay believers, but the Catholic church as far I know doesn't ban them. Further, can't they regularly be forgiven for their "sins"?

However, religion overall is a choice even at an earlier age because, even if the parents force their kids to the worship place (like I do), it is not a guarentee that they will live their life like someone who is faithful (Just like the OP's wife in all honesty). Guilt over it is simply something not reconciled with the individuals since the religion itself usually makes pretty clear what their expectations are.

I agree about emotional harm & don't mean to minimize it. It arises when someone is confused about their faith or lack of it. But unlike real abuse, the emotional harm can be caused by anything including stuff not associated with doctrine itself (like friends, family, or even actions) which is why I exclude it.

The round peg of people's thoughts oftentimes does not fit the square hole of religious doctrine. Just like with our employment, religion simply lays down the rules, it doesn't force it down people's throats IF they choose not to follow it. Switching from one religion to another simply takes a letter to remove yourself from any church ranks. Becoming atheist/agnostic after baptism requires no action.

Just to be clear, I think two thoughts can exist on gay issues. I think that religion can and should back up their teachings regarding their view. At the same time, an indiviidual citizen of a particular country can look beyond their religious beliefs to allow secular equal opportunity to everyone. I am far from patriotic, but even the "Founding Fathers" of America did that. Most church members do that now because they don't want their rights to be trampled on next. Honestly, Obama should be cheerleading that point more than he is.

 

[Alcoori]

At the same time, an indiviidual citizen of a particular country can look beyond their religious beliefs to allow secular equal opportunity to everyone.

They should, but some can't and that is the whole predicament we are in right now.

As for baptism, I agree on principle, but knowing that it means something to the catholic church I chose to reject bothers me.
In their eyes, you can't reject religion and whatever you do, you are still a catholic albeit a "lost" one.

So even if on a personal level you can do whatever you want, knowing that this particular religion still considers me as one of them bugs me and once you get baptized there is no way back.

 

[dimb]

"I would want my kids to decide for themselves when the time comes, but first i would like to have the opportunity to try and shape how they think about it, so that when they decide they decide correctly."

The problem with this kind of thinking, even though you're joking, is that kids can't make big decisions for themselves. They're kids, and you have to make them do things they don't want all the time.

A kid can't decide if he wants to be Catholic or not early on in their life because that decision has no meaning to them. Church simply introduces a positive set of values, brings people together, and can offer more perspective through life experience.

At the end of the day Catholicism is most approachable to people as they are growing up. It ultimately does create a somewhat hostile atmosphere if the family is split religiously. Reading through the original post it honestly looks like you want to egg the kid on into being an atheist like you. This would be fine but it is the opposite of what your wife wants, and realistically you have to just go with it. She wants to bring something positive into your kid's life, from her point of view. Are you really going to fight her on that?

 

[LCGeek]

Just to be clear, I think two thoughts can exist on gay issues. I think that religion can and should back up their teachings regarding their view. At the same time, an indiviidual citizen of a particular country can look beyond their religious beliefs to allow secular equal opportunity to everyone. I am far from patriotic, but even the "Founding Fathers" of America did that. Most church members do that now because they don't want their rights to be trampled on next. Honestly, Obama should be cheerleading that point more than he is.

Shame post history isn't accessible two of my post clearly lay out what the scripture says on the subject which has been changed numerous times. Sodomy is different from being gay and was mixed in such a fashion to demonize the community despite various hints that god has no issue with eunuchs, third genders or gays. Christianity is full of contradiction god loves all because god is a part of all only divisive fools buy in to bullshit god is selective. Ignorance only limits you being TG and growing up in religion prepared me for a lot of experiences that not being in religion couldn't.

I don't expect obama to be a cheerleader other than a focused agenda of the times. Republicans have shown from election and beyond they will gladly trump useless issues for the sake of the country to keep progress from happening.

 

[FiRez]

Fixed.

I stand corrected

Well, you're an optimist.

Yes, well at least I hope so, I'm just talking from my own experience here, my father made me ask questions when I didn't understand something, I remember watching cosmos and going to the library with him since very early, sadly those things didn't happen with my younger brothers, so we happen to see the world and life in very opposite ways

 

[AIRic]

I dressed up as a lamb for a play. Appropriate?

I was Jesus lol! What a great role it was, I was simply sleeping on the ground for the play.

 

[Bebpo]

It depends, every person is different. For some reason I've noticed a lot of gamers are either Atheist/Agnostic or have completely left their religion. At least from what I've seen. Of course, this kid could be different. I'm just saying my two cents.

Gaming predominately revolved around Japanese games in the late 80s, 90s when many got into it. Japan + religion = lol and it shows in a lot of their games. I don't think a lot of highly religious people would be down with jrpgs where you kill god as the final boss.

And it still continues today. I mean look at Bayonetta. You're killing angels and god with the help of demons.

 

[jdogmoney]

The problem with this kind of thinking, even though you're joking, is that kids can't make big decisions for themselves. They're kids, and you have to make them do things they don't want all the time.

A kid can't decide if he wants to be Catholic or not early on in their life because that decision has no meaning to them. Church simply introduces a positive set of values, brings people together, and can offer more perspective through life experience.

At the end of the day Catholicism is most approachable to people as they are growing up. It ultimately does create a somewhat hostile atmosphere if the family is split religiously. Reading through the original post it honestly looks like you want to egg the kid on into being an atheist like you. This would be fine but it is the opposite of what your wife wants, and realistically you have to just go with it. She wants to bring something positive into your kid's life, from her point of view. Are you really going to fight her on that?

This implies that atheism is not something positive. Not sure if deliberate.

I think there's a point that those who basically say that the kids and Qub should go to church because it's only an hour of your time are missing. MikeOfTheLivingDead seems to not grasp this, in particular. If it weren't a big deal, they'd both be going to church now, with RubxQub paying lip service.

It IS a big deal, is the thing.

My experience, for what it's worth, is that I was raised Christian, in a couple of different churches, in West Texas, which is not exactly the most diverse of regions, spiritually speaking. I had my choice of both kinds of religion, Catholic and Protestant.

I had a bit of a rough time growing up, suffering from a crisis of faith...since I was raised to have faith, but I was born a skeptic. The default "faith is necessary" mentality held me back longer than I care to admit, and it's only after independent study into philosophy that I began to build my own world view. I remain convinced that I, at least, would have been happier without any influence from religion.

Of course, I'd assume that the child in question would have a better time of it than I did, and would therefore "count his blessings"...I don't know, honestly. My moral core is damn near unshakable, and that's without the thought of heaven or hell or any though of reward. More often than not, I don't get any sort of reward from doing what I think is good. I find reward in doing the deed itself. Makes me feel good, and whether the origin of that is societal conditioning over thousands of years or through my experiences growing up or through the divine providence of a deity ultimately doesn't matter. Doing good feels good, man.

tl;dr: OP: Your kid will not be "good" or "bad" based on his religious upbringing alone, so that can be eliminated from your consideration.

 

[JGS]

Shame post history isn't accessible two of my post clearly lay out what the scripture says on the subject which has been changed numerous times. Sodomy is different from being gay and was mixed in such a fashion to demonize the community despite various hints that god has no issue with eunuchs, third genders or gays. Christianity is full of contradiction god loves all because god is a part of all only divisive fools buy in to bullshit god is selective. Ignorance only limits you being TG and growing up in religion prepared me for a lot of experiences that not being in religion couldn't.

I don't expect obama to be a cheerleader other than a focused agenda of the times. Republicans have shown from election and beyond they will gladly trump useless issues for the sake of the country to keep progress from happening.

I never said being gay and performing sodomy are the same thing. In fact, I said that gays were preached to at the onset of Christianity. However, homosexual acts were every bit as condemened as heterosexual ones outside of marriage - i.e. fornication. This is where the churches are are t least a little hypocritical because very few of them have issue with a man and a woman having sex outside marriage in this day and age, but with gay people it's a different story.

The big difference has to do with the idea that marriage was always meant for man and woman. Even if a man and woman did the deed despite the law on the matter, they could still get married to remedy the situation. Two men/women could not. Therefore, any sex act performed by two people of the same gender was automatically fornication. This has everything to do with religious thought/history on what defines a marriage & fornication (& sodomy for that matter) and I think they have pretty solid ground to back up their belief within the confines of the belief.

However, a religious view of marriage has nothing to do with a government one. I am amazed at how easily Obama and others get a pass and somehow are able to deflect blame back to the Republicans for something they clearly do not approve of - gay marriage. It's like saying that Obama is chicken, so there's no reason to push the agenda even though he pushes a lot of unpopular agendas. The reality is Obama has been very bold in his opposition to it. This is the primary reason there is an issue because even the liberal part of society still has problems with the idea.

 

[Dipper145]

Whatever you do, it probably won't matter. Your kid appears to have two intelligent parents who are open minded to different belief systems. I would probably just focus on which schools have the better educational system rather than which teaches what religion.

Your son is growing up in an age where information is easily available over the internet. It's not like your kid will be a member at raptureready.

 

[Future]

Goin through this myself. Basically decided that I will let her take any future kids to church all she wants, but will never feel pressure to go myself. Cant see how it would hurt: When you're a kid you arent going to know enough to make any religious decisions yourself. And while I'm not religious myself, I dont think the church is a horrible influence. I just suspect that eventually the kid will get old enough to notice his father never attends, and thats when words will be had.

 

[LCGeek]

I never said being gay and performing sodomy are the same thing. In fact, I said that gays were preached to at the onset of Christianity. However, homosexual acts were every bit as condemened as heterosexual ones outside of marriage - i.e. fornication. This is where the churches are are t least a little hypocritical because very few of them have issue with a man and a woman having sex outside marriage in this day and age, but with gay people it's a different story.

The big difference has to do with the idea that marriage was always meant for man and woman. Even if a man and woman did the deed despite the law on the matter, they could still get married to remedy the situation. Two men/women could not. Therefore, any sex act performed by two people of the same gender was automatically fornication. This has everything to do with religious thought/history on what defines a marriage & fornication (& sodomy for that matter) and I think they have pretty solid ground to back up their belief within the confines of the belief.

However, a religious view of marriage has nothing to do with a government one. I am amazed at how easily Obama and others get a pass and somehow are able to deflect blame back to the Republicans for something they clearly do not approve of - gay marriage. It's like saying that Obama is chicken, so there's no reason to push the agenda even though he pushes a lot of unpopular agendas. The reality is Obama has been very bold in his opposition to it. This is the primary reason there is an issue because even the liberal part of society still has problems with the idea.

Not necessarily you I was just speaking on the subject and how it's been twisted. Scripture rarely deals with the subject only the church authority has which by all evidence has been show to twist things for a whole host of agendas. Wish more of the faithful would do the same but most rarely inform themselves of theology or actually what the scripture gets in to and how.

 

[JGS]

They should, but some can't and that is the whole predicament we are in right now.

As for baptism, I agree on principle, but knowing that it means something to the catholic church I chose to reject bothers me.
In their eyes, you can't reject religion and whatever you do, you are still a catholic albeit a "lost" one.

So even if on a personal level you can do whatever you want, knowing that this particular religion still considers me as one of them bugs me and once you get baptized there is no way back.

To be honest, that makes no sense if that's the religion's stance. The idea that a baby is forced to be baptized and can't get out of it is foreign to me to begin with.

My kids get baptized when they want to...or never. Baptism is about choice not force. Otherwise faith and belief is not involved.

However, leaving the church now can be done by resigning in writing. It definitely works and officially removes you from their ranks.

Even if they refuse, however, you can't live life by what someone thinks of you anyway. Otherwise, to some I would be evil solely on the basis of being religious which I would never accept as true and routinely make fun of when the accusation is cast my way.

 

[Shanadeus]

Without having read the entire thread and only glanced at your two options Id say that "pretending" to be religious for some time sets a very bad predecent for your child(ren) when you tell them they can make a choice and they learn you;re not really catholic.
Your option is more than reasonable.

 

[SapientWolf]

The problem with this kind of thinking, even though you're joking, is that kids can't make big decisions for themselves. They're kids, and you have to make them do things they don't want all the time.

A kid can't decide if he wants to be Catholic or not early on in their life because that decision has no meaning to them. Church simply introduces a positive set of values, brings people together, and can offer more perspective through life experience.

At the end of the day Catholicism is most approachable to people as they are growing up. It ultimately does create a somewhat hostile atmosphere if the family is split religiously. Reading through the original post it honestly looks like you want to egg the kid on into being an atheist like you. This would be fine but it is the opposite of what your wife wants, and realistically you have to just go with it. She wants to bring something positive into your kid's life, from her point of view. Are you really going to fight her on that?

That's right, and joining a religion is a huge decision. So I think the child should be made aware of religion when they can understand the concepts and then given the choice to do what they would like. The positive thing is to respect your child enough to let them choose their own path, even if it's not the one you chose yourself. It shows that you value them as a person.

 

[mandiller]

Highfive RubxQub, I'm a younger version of you. I'm an atheist and in a serious relationship with a Christian.

We've briefly discussed what would happen if/when we had a child together, but I imagine there is going to be a lot of arguments. I feel as you do though that the child should choose what they want to do when they grow old enough to understand these issues. But it should be handled in a mature way, so the child doesn't feel like their choosing between parents. That could create all sorts of problems.

And I'm also wary of indoctrination. I'd rather people use their thinker at all times rather than follow something blindly. Logical thinking skills are important. They're not everything mind you, but they are important. The universe is just slightly too big for our logical thoughts sometimes.

 

[Alcoori]

To be honest, that makes no sense if that's the religion's stance. The idea that a baby is forced to be baptized and can't get out of it is foreign to me to begin with.

My kids get baptized when they want to...or never. Baptism is about choice not force. Otherwise faith and belief is not involved.

However, leaving the church now can be done by resigning in writing. It definitely works and officially removes you from their ranks.

Even if they refuse, however, you can't live life by what someone thinks of you anyway. Otherwise, to some I would be evil solely on the basis of being religious which I would never accept as true and routinely make fun of when the accusation is cast my way.

Well no, in their mind baptism has something to do with your soul being reborn with god or something like that.
The only thing you can do is get your name taken of the register the church has but ideologically no way you can get unbaptized. God has you soul and won't give it back

 

[Jamesfrom818]

To be honest, that makes no sense if that's the religion's stance. The idea that a baby is forced to be baptized and can't get out of it is foreign to me to begin with.

My kids get baptized when they want to...or never. Baptism is about choice not force. Otherwise faith and belief is not involved.

However, leaving the church now can be done by resigning in writing. It definitely works and officially removes you from their ranks.

Even if they refuse, however, you can't live life by what someone thinks of you anyway. Otherwise, to some I would be evil solely on the basis of being religious which I would never accept as true and routinely make fun of when the accusation is cast my way.

Ever heard of original sin? Catholicism believes that everyone is born with the sin of Adam and Eve stained on their soul and that is why baptism takes place at such an early age. Adolescents undergo the sacrament of confirmation as a reaffirmation of the Catholic faith. Its like baptism part II for when you're old enough to think for yourself.

 

[ruel]

No matter what way you decide to bring up your kids, make sure to give them a strong understanding of how to think critically and logically. You need to give them the proper tools to analyze evidence and decide what the truth is for themselves. They should never be taught to blindly believe something without logically analyzing it.