aargh. brainwashed kids and kid's questions (religion and origin of the universe)

[Avatar28]

A little background, we've got a friend of my stepson and his mother living with us for a time as they got evicted when the house they were renting got siezed for backtaxes and due to other problems with their landlord (like she is a control freak and was trying to control their lives).

Anyways, a few weeks ago we (the mother and I) got into a slight argument about the old evolution vs creationism bit. I still haven't bothered resurrecting that one as it would be pointless. She has offered to have her pastor debate me on the matter though. :/

Anyways, last night I was watching the Nova episode about string/m-theory and they were talking about it's implication for the origin of the universe. Well her son was in the living room getting something. He looked up at the TV and scowled and told him, "You stupid idiot! God created the universe." *sigh*

For the record I DO believe there is a God but I also think that the generally accepted scientific theories are mostly right (even if they are still works in progress). This sort of brain washing doesn't bode well for our future and I'm dreading when the topic comes up with our kids since I'm sure my wife and I will be in conflict; she was shocked that I believe in evolution in the aforementioned argument and I'm sure there's going to be some conflict there. I've been trying to figure out how to handle it when it inevitably occurs and was hoping someone would have similar experience and the best way to handle things when one's spouse and kids are involved.

[Ronald Brak]

I recommend spending some time in Japan or another country without organized religion. It's great for clearing your mind and enabling you to ask honest questions such as, "Which God?" "How do you know?" and "I feel in my heart that my grandmother loves me, does that make her god?"

Also good is, "How do you know the Rainbow Serpent didn't make the world in the Dreamtime? Surely as the oldest surviving culture on earth the Australian Aboriginals are in the best position to know."

[farmerjumperdon]

I've been trying to figure out how to handle it when it inevitably occurs and was hoping someone would have similar experience and the best way to handle things when one's spouse and kids are involved.

Just smile and wave.

As you walk away.

[Ronald Brak]

Just smile and wave.

As you walk away.

This is the most practical thing to do unless you enjoy trouble. Of course if people insist on preaching to me then I have no problem severly injuring their brains by smiling and asking questions at the level of a five year old.

[Sticks]

The annoying fact is that some creationists are ignorant of what creationism teaches and some evolutionists are ignorant of what evolutionism teaches, i.e "Saying men evolved from the apes instead of saying men and apes have a common ancestor" or "God planted the fossils to test our faith instead of fossils point to a global flood"

I realise you will not agree with the second example, but it was the only example I could think of where a nominal creationist is not aware of the official creationist line. If that makes any sense.

Anyhue

people on both sides have a tendency to come up with statements that they are not up on what their side says.

For the record, I do not recall having any issues with string or M theory, as it is quite cute and possibly on its way to bring us the Holy Grail of Physics, the Grand Unification Theory

[SolusLupus]

Well, the problem here is that you're dealing with the masses, who are almost ALWAYS ignorant in most cases (I mean, the next-door plumber isn't really going to be a master Theologian... though he still might be intelligent!)

People go with what they think is true and what isn't...

My best suggestion for debating on the side of evolutionism is this:

1) Point out that genetics is real and true. People are born the way they look because of genetics, not because God made them look that way (though the latter could be argued, all that's provable is the former).

2) Evolution is based on actual observations, and certain creatures have been shown to "evolve" within the past 100 years... moths turning darker to survive in smog-infested areas, and snake's heads getting smaller so they don't eat large poisonous toads.

3) Evolution is mostly about species-ation. As for saying where the origin of life came from (abiogenesis, I believe?), while covered in evolution, is the main part that's only a theory, and is more or less untested and up to debate.


Now, to argue the other points (big bang theory, string theory, etc.), you have to remind them that these are men that have done much study and research, and have spent their lives devoted to unearthing questions of our past. Then you have to explain what science is really about... and how the same science that is talking about the Big Bang is the same science that allowed for construction, chemistry, biology, medical advancements, etc.

Of course, be sure to remind them that science is in the habit of saying, "...but maybe I could be wrong. If I find out I'm wrong, I'll look for the right answer".

Last tip: Try not to be condescending, insulting, or lose your temper. It's common sense, but I still have to work on that myself. Further, also remind them that science and god are not automatically seperate, and that thinking that evolution is the best theory isn't the same as thinking that God doesn't exist. Explain that there are plenty of scientists that also believe in God.

[Matherly]

I recommend spending some time in Japan or another country without organized religion.

You don't call Shinto and Buddism organized religions?

[Ronald Brak]

You don't call Shinto and Buddism organized religions?

Not compared to what's in America and historically in Europe. And although their traditions are all very important to them, they don't actually believe it. Just because they throw beans out the door on the first day of spring doesn't mean they think there really are evil spirits that are cast out by doing that. They feel it is important to follow traditions to preserve their sense of community, but the rituals don't have to be about anything real in order to do that. For example here we all go to church when someone dies even though we don't believe they are actually going to go to a mystical land of the dead. It's just a tradition that has survived from more superstitious times.

[94z07]

Consider a play or a movie. Any movie will do but I’ll use one, as an example, that most are likely familiar with. In Beverly Hills Cop, the story begins with Axel trying to sting some people who are buying cigarettes. The movie does not begin at the moment the universe was created. The writer gave every character an assumed past. We never saw Axel attend a police academy. We never saw Axel and Michael “boost” that car they talked about. We never saw Victor make a choice to become a drug smuggler. Viewers are watching a story that begins in the middle of the character’s lives. We accept the assumed past as a necessary foundation for the story. The motives of the characters and their abilities are mostly based upon events we are not given. Some motives and abilities are key to the plot of the movie so we are given them in expository dialogue (In other stories this is often accomplished editorially.) There are certain rules that bind what the characters can and cannot do. For example, Axel is not built-proof and can’t fly. Also, Billy finds going against authority difficult.

Now back to the OP:

It is certainly possible that a creator created the laws of physics that would allow the operation of the universe without his or her continued input. In order for these laws to function and not to serve as proof of a supreme being, the universe was given an assumed past. We are told that faith is a large component of one’s relationship with God. If that is so, then there can be no smoking gun evidence proving the existence of the supernatural.

For myself I believe that there is no proof of the supernatural. I have not received any successful attempt by a God to communicate with me. I will remain an agnostic until either of the above changes. I think it requires faith to be either religious or atheist. I have no faith.

[JohnW]

Anyways, last night I was watching the Nova episode about string/m-theory and they were talking about it's implication for the origin of the universe. Well her son was in the living room getting something. He looked up at the TV and scowled and told him, "You stupid idiot! God created the universe." *sigh*
You could suggest that string/m-theory might help us explain how God created the universe.

[JohnW]

The annoying fact is that some creationists are ignorant of what creationism teaches and some evolutionists are ignorant of what evolutionism teaches, i.e "Saying men evolved from the apes instead of saying men and apes have a common ancestor" or "God planted the fossils to test our faith instead of fossils point to a global flood"

I realise you will not agree with the second example, but it was the only example I could think of where a nominal creationist is not aware of the official creationist line. If that makes any sense.

Anyhue

people on both sides have a tendency to come up with statements that they are not up on what their side says.

For the record, I do not recall having any issues with string or M theory, as it is quite cute and possibly on its way to bring us the Holy Grail of Physics, the Grand Unification Theory

A couple of comments:

1. I see what you're trying to say in your first paragraph, but both your "evolutionist" statements are not really correct. Men (and even women) are apes. Your second statement is close, but it's a bit like saying "crows and birds share a common ancestor".

2. There's an official creationist line? Enforced by whom?

[Celestial Mechanic]

Not compared to what's in America and historically in Europe. And although their traditions are all very important to them, they don't actually believe it. Just because they throw beans out the door on the first day of spring doesn't mean they think there really are evil spirits that are cast out by doing that. They feel it is important to follow traditions to preserve their sense of community, but the rituals don't have to be about anything real in order to do that. For example here we all go to church when someone dies even though we don't believe they are actually going to go to a mystical land of the dead. It's just a tradition that has survived from more superstitious times.
A good example of this is Groundhog Day in America. Every February 2 local people or zoo-keepers pull some poor innocent hibernating rodent out of the ground in order to determine if it casts a shadow. If it "sees its shadow" this supposedly means that winter will last another 6 weeks. Nobody believes a word of this, but we do this every year, it's covered on the news. This is another example of a tradition that has survived from more superstitious times.

[Jeff Root]

Men (and even women) are apes.
I suspect that you confused the terms "ape" and "primate".
Like apes, monkeys, and lemurs, humans are primates. But
humans are not apes, and our ancestors were not apes.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jeff Root]

I recommend spending some time in Japan or another country...
This strikes me as an astonishingly good suggestion for the
problem at hand. I wish I could do that myself, for essentially
the same reason.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[jrkeller]

In my opinion, unless they are peaching killing in the name of God, you should drop the issue.

There are thousands of people who had very religious parents who are now atheists or agnostics. There are also thousands of people who were brought up with no religion and are very religious. The kid will figure out what is best.

[jseefcoot]

This is an argument that will never ever die. No amount of discussion will sway the balance one way or another. For as long as people believe in some type of supreme being, there will be a conflict between that belief and science in general.

It is my personal belief that we created gods, not the other way around. Our ancestors created them for several reasons -- to explain the things they could not yet understand, to aid in implementing laws, order, and/or societal control, etc. -- and these reasons just don't remain static indefinitely. They grow and change all around us while religious doctrines do not. As we expand our knowledge of the universe around us, we see much that is at odds with practically every religion worldwide -- simply because these religions were not designed by omniscient, omnipresent entities with unlimited knowledge (who would undoubtedly have made contact with us by now to 'update' our out-of-date religious texts). I think all religions were fashioned by people, for their own purposes, and that by and large the human species no longer has a need to believe in a supreme being. To me, such a belief is reflective of an ostrich burying its head in the sand, in which people want to rely on someone else rather than themselves, to ignore the reality around them and to hide from the true state of things.

The mentality of the average American christian is about as anti-science as it gets. It is difficult to get a hardcore believer to even listen to your side of the argument. Oh, they might hear it, but they aren't listening. Their view is typically along the lines of 'If you don't believe what I believe, well then you're wrong and you're going to hell. Simple as that.' I have yet to encounter a single person who believed in creationism that was open-minded to any other possibility; however, nearly every person who believes in evolution seems to understand that things change and their mind must remain open to all possibilities.

And that, I'm afraid, is the crux of the situation. There might as well be a hundred light years in between the two points of view, because they will never see eye-to-eye. You know how it is often said that 'you only get out of your mind what you put into it to begin with'? Well, to me a closed mind is permanently EMPTY. I don't even bother arguing with creationists anymore unless they acknowledge right from the start that many possiblities might exist. They don't have to agree that they do exist, just that they might. If they can open up that far, they can open up farther -- but if they can't make that simple concession, it's likely they will hear everything you say while listening to none of it.

So, my approach is to establish their level of open-mindedness before I engage in a discussion. Otherwise, the conversation nearly always degenerates into a diatribe on how I'm wrong, so is everyone who thinks as I do, and we are all going to burn unless we convert now, which does nothing but solidfy the position and beliefs I have described here.

And, just for background, I was raised in a Lutheran and Baptist environment and have never stopped searching for God. I've read the entire Bible, in more than one translation, more than once. I even pray. But I do not believe, and will not, until someone can show me one speck of verifiable evidence. That's all it would take.

[JohnW]

I suspect that you confused the terms "ape" and "primate".
Like apes, monkeys, and lemurs, humans are primates. But
humans are not apes, and our ancestors were not apes.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
I'm not confused at all. Humans are apes. Look at this phylogenetic tree (http://tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299). Note that chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely related to humans (i.e. share a more recent common ancestor) than they are to gorillas or orang-utans.

Of course, humans are also primates.

[Gillianren]

I suspect that you confused the terms "ape" and "primate".
Like apes, monkeys, and lemurs, humans are primates. But
humans are not apes, and our ancestors were not apes.

Tell that to my physical anthropology professor from college. In fact, as I recall, you'd've had to've told that to Stephen Jay Gould, given that in the lecture I saw on videotape in two separate college classes (bio and physical anthropology), I'm pretty sure he said humans are apes. I could be wrong on that last, though, I admit; it was 1999, or thereabouts.

[FrostByte]

Lemme put it this way: I hope a god/supreme being exists. Because if it exists, it would be a very fair judge. Karma, you know.

And losing your faith over the fact that god may not have created the earth in 6 days is a sign that you didn't have that much faith to begin with.

[Andúril]

The problem is that no one really knows what caused the universe to be born. There can be only theories. That's where creationists and other such people can, for now, use their old "goddidit" -argument. However, there's still not a single shred of evidence of any kind of god either. The fact that science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that there is an almighty God, at least not in the way any religions (that are all created by man) pose it.

However, LIFE does not need any divine process. It has quite clearly been shown that organic stuff CAN be born out of inorganic stuff, perhaps with the help of electricity (lightnings) or radiation. Creationist arguments that a single cell is way too complex to be born by accident can be ignored; who said that the first cell needed to be exactly like they are today, after billions of years of evolution? All that the first cell (or a bunch of proteins) needed to do was to copy itself. And that's all; random mutations can then be either advantageous or disadvantageous. That's the basic idea of evolution. Besides, it took a few billion years for cells to evolve enough to allow them to form multi-cell creatures; that happened "only" about 700 million years ago. Sometimes I even have a feeling that cretins don't fully understand how vast time scales we are dealing with.

[Jeff Root]

Sorry. I forgot that the relationships between humans and our
nearest relatives were completely revised about 15 years ago.
I didn't have much access to current literature or media at that
time, and haven't caught up in that subject area. It was just
something I heard rumors about!

I saw Gould talk in person once, but that was very long ago.
Might have even been before his first book.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Donnie B.]

It has quite clearly been shown that organic stuff CAN be born out of inorganic stuff, perhaps with the help of electricity (lightnings) or radiation. A minor quibble here: to a chemist, "organic" has a specific meaning and is not synonymous with "living". Further, no experiment to date has been able to create anything demonstarbly alive from non-living material.

We have, however, created some complex building blocks of life (e.g. amino acids) from simpler organic chemicals (e.g. methane and such) in an appropriate environment.

We have also synthesized entire viruses from simpler organic components, but it's still debatable as to whether a virus is technically "alive".

[Doodler]

You could suggest that string/m-theory might help us explain how God created the universe.

Nifty bandaid, but then you get the yokels who howl about knowing Gawd's will and believe it should simply be accepted that He Did And That's That.

Believe me, you could shave some of these skulls into small plates, line a space shuttle hull with them and never worry about heat again...

[Moose]

Believe me, you could shave some of these skulls into small plates

You know, shuttle or no, some would consider this fun in its own right. ;)

[HenrikOlsen]

Nifty bandaid, but then you get the yokels who howl about knowing Gawd's will and believe it should simply be accepted that He Did And That's That.
I have absolutely no problems with those.
The ones I have problems with are the ones who think Gawd is still looking and interfering and can be tricked into changing the rules if only you pay them enough money to tell him to.

[SolusLupus]

I have absolutely no problems with those.
The ones I have problems with are the ones who think Gawd is still looking and interfering and can be tricked into changing the rules if only you pay them enough money to tell him to.

Well, I absolutely have a problem with those, personally.

[Avatar28]

Thanks for the suggestions, there are a few things to work with here. Unfortunately it seems I didn't post quite in time.

I was lying on the couch this afternoon resting a bit since I didn't get a lot of sleep today (I work nights). My wife popped the question, "Do you believe in the big bang?"

I knew it would go badly.

I told her that yes, I did (mostly). "Oh, so you don't believe in God then." I pointed out the bible doesn't say HOW God created the universe, just that he did. She then said I couldn't believe in both and why don't I just admit that I'm an atheist. I told her again that I'm not and just let the subject drop. Unfortunately the whole thing left her in an upset mood the rest of the evening (she had been mostly fine until then). :/

I'm sure it won't be the last time and I'm just waiting for them to try some sort of "intervention" to save my soul or something. Mind, I don't THINK she would do that, but at the same time I wouldn't be especially shocked if she did either. It depends if she brings the subject up with her sister or pastor or somebody.

I was telling my best friend here at work about the incident tonight. She asked if it would help if I told her that I worked with a witch (knowing the answer). I just had to laugh and tell her probably not. Lord, I could just imagine the reaction there.

[Makgraf]

One of my friends once asked (completely seriously!): "If men came from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys." I was literally struck dumb (well, technically, I guess the right word should be figuratively). I think I eventually said something about a) men not coming from monkeys and b) monkeys filling a different niche.

Anyway, does that fact that my friend held this opinion make him a "yokel" or mean that I should flee the country to dwell among those without organized religion who are, apperently, better and wiser people? The basic fact is that the theory of evolution is correct. But if the issue is framed as "You believe in evolution or you believe in God" then evolution will lose. Seeing all members of organized religion as the enemy is really not helping any.

Fun fact: the big bang was orginally scorned by many as thinly veiled Catholic dogma (pushed by a Priest, praised by a Pope and pushing aside the perpetual universe theory then in vogue). As for string theory I don't believe in it. Oh, I'm willing to accept it's correct. But on a gut level I just can't convince myself that's the way the universe is ordered (same as on that gut level I don't believe in God). Still, I'm willing to trust the scientists who actually know something about the issue (unlike, say, me).

[Eric Vaxxine]

In my opinion, if there was one true God, there would be one true religion. My mom was religious (I am not) and yet is was she that reminded me that GOD is DOG spelt backwards. In this science age, nature is my inspiration.

In simple terms, it fascinates me that if you plant a seed, it somehow has the intelligence to grow !

[Sticks]

Thanks for the suggestions, there are a few things to work with here. Unfortunately it seems I didn't post quite in time.

I was lying on the couch this afternoon resting a bit since I didn't get a lot of sleep today (I work nights). My wife popped the question, "Do you believe in the big bang?"


My thoughts here, which may come from left field, and I am aware we could be sailing close to the wind on the no religion rule, but coming from the faith side, in the interests of domestic harmony.

1) You need to establish what is driving this big push?

Is someone in her church pushing her to convert you? So you need to find out the sudden interest on this. Has someone set some quota somewhere. The only thing I can think of is that someone may have passed a comment to her asking why she married a "unbeliever" (There is a passage in 2 Corinthians 6:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=54&chapter=6&verse=14&version=31&context=verse) that some take as an injunction against doing this, but that interpreation is disputed)

You need to get to the bottom of this obsession.

2) When she next goes on, ask her to look up 1Peter 3:1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:1-6%20;&version=31;), it might help with some respite.

3) Try and rephrase what you say to bring in an element of doubt.
e.g Q "Do you believe in the big bang" - A "That is what they say the evidence points to"

4) Ask her why she questions things, anyone in the faith world who has done any apologetics should be able to come up with some answer outwith the Bible, even if you have heard it all before. From our side in the faith world, investigation is not something to be avoided, remind her of the Bereans (Acts 17:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:11&version=31))

I hope this helps sort things out between you.
(I suspect the point 1 is the main thing to concentrate on as it could indicate the interference of a third party puting undue pressure on your wife)

Sorry if this posting breaches any regulations here, I just want to see if there is a way that Avatar28 can defuse this, working within the framework of reference of Mrs Avatar28

[Avatar28]

My thoughts here, which may come from left field, and I am aware we could be sailing close to the wind on the no religion rule, but coming from the faith side, in the interests of domestic harmony.

1) You need to establish what is driving this big push?

Is someone in her church pushing her to convert you? So you need to find out the sudden interest on this. Has someone set some quota somewhere. The only thing I can think of is that someone may have passed a comment to her asking why she married a "unbeliever" (There is a passage in 2 Corinthians 6:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=54&chapter=6&verse=14&version=31&context=verse) that some take as an injunction against doing this, but that interpreation is disputed)

You need to get to the bottom of this obsession.

If it's anyone my money would be on her grandmother. I think it may bother her that I don't go to church with her either. Not to mention that I don't doubt other people at church have asked why I don't come more (I let her drag me there on Easter).


2) When she next goes on, ask her to look up 1Peter 3:1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:1-6%20;&version=31;), it might help with some respite.

3) Try and rephrase what you say to bring in an element of doubt.
e.g Q "Do you believe in the big bang" - A "That is what they say the evidence points to"

4) Ask her why she questions things, anyone in the faith world who has done any apologetics should be able to come up with some answer outwith the Bible, even if you have heard it all before. From our side in the faith world, investigation is not something to be avoided, remind her of the Bereans (Acts 17:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:11&version=31))

I hope this helps sort things out between you.
(I suspect the point 1 is the main thing to concentrate on as it could indicate the interference of a third party puting undue pressure on your wife)

Sorry if this posting breaches any regulations here, I just want to see if there is a way that Avatar28 can defuse this, working within the framework of reference of Mrs Avatar28

I don't know that it really is a religious debate and it's certainly the sort of educated help I was hoping to find here so I would certainly hope the mods aren't angry. These other points you raised are kind of what I was expecting to get (the type, not the exact content), I didn't even think about inquiring int number 1.

[Andúril]

A minor quibble here: to a chemist, "organic" has a specific meaning and is not synonymous with "living". Further, no experiment to date has been able to create anything demonstarbly alive from non-living material.

We have, however, created some complex building blocks of life (e.g. amino acids) from simpler organic chemicals (e.g. methane and such) in an appropriate environment.

We have also synthesized entire viruses from simpler organic components, but it's still debatable as to whether a virus is technically "alive".
Thanks for correction; that's what I tried to say. :)

Btw, Avatar28: if you are concerned about this religious brainwashing of your kids, perhaps you should launch some sort of counterattack and introduce them to science by offering them science books to read and other similar stuff. Letting them to watch something like Star Trek won't probably be bad either. And try to keep them away from too religious circles.

When I was a kid, I still believed in God, but I also knew pretty much about dinosaurs, astronomy and evolution and never believed in creation. On the other hand, there has never been a great pro-religion press in my family.

[jseefcoot]

What a quandary. I really feel for you, Avatar28. It is most unfair to have your core beliefs questioned, I think. Unless you questioned hers? Perhaps her motivation comes from something you said. Is there a chance you made a remark that was dismissive of her religion, or religion in general, within earshot? I once did something very similar with my ex-wife, and we were at odds for a week before she finally let on that she had overheard me say something she disagreed with. I didn't even know she was there when I said it, and the topic involved was nearly identical to yours. Just a thought.

It looks like your biggest concern is your children. You want them to be open minded, and to not take some kind of hardline anti-science religious stance before they are actually old enough to make the decision for themselves, am I right? That part won't happen unless you and your wife come to an understanding beforehand. Trust me on this one, even though we've never met. If your wife is hardcore religious, she just might see your lack of belief as a threat to the spiritual fate of your kids, and what you term as brainwashing could take on a whole new turn when the mother instinct takes control.

If you want her to be open minded to the possibility that perhaps religion is not the way, and that perhaps there is no God after all, then you should also be prepared to join her in church services. It is only fair, and it makes for a more productive floor of discussion. If it feels hypocritical to you to do this, remember that she probably feels hypocritical just entertaining thoughts of her God not being real, much less actually exploring the possibility. It has to be a two way street, or there will never be an understanding between the two viewpoints.

I have seen lots of great advice so far, and I would like to reinforce one thing: try to stay away from absolutes. Often it's the manner in which you phrase the comment, as Sticks related earlier, and it helps to leave things open-ended. One of my worst arguments was to say 'We both are searching for the same thing -- the truth', a line inspired by the movie 'Contact'. Apparently, truth in the modern christian dogma means 'anything the bible says' and false means 'anything not in the bible'. Also apparently, I am very very false. That was an ugly episode, and the lesson was, no absolutes. And in the interests of keeping a two way street that is conducive to discussion and provides an open forum for that discussion, remind yourself that the theory of evolution is still just a theory, it is not an absolute either. Of course there is a preponderance of evidence to support it, but only two hundred or so years ago, there was a preponderance of evidence to support creationism.

Best of luck to you, and Ill keep you in my (agnostically influenced) prayers.

[Gillianren]

I don't know that it really is a religious debate and it's certainly the sort of educated help I was hoping to find here so I would certainly hope the mods aren't angry. These other points you raised are kind of what I was expecting to get (the type, not the exact content), I didn't even think about inquiring int number 1.

Really? It was practically my first thought. After all, she must know about your disinclination toward church, right?

My opinion is that you probably ought to sit down with her some time and place you won't be interrupted (after the kids are in bed?) and talk this out. The simple fact is, arguing isn't the answer, not if you still want to reach a compromise--which is what you're going to have to do. After all, they're her kids, too. We here may disapprove of what she's apparently teaching them, but I would imagine you can name any number of people that you know personally who disapprove of what you want to teach them.

I vote for teaching tolerance. It worked for me. My wonderful Irish Catholic, Nova-watching mother was a great influence on me.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Really? It was practically my first thought. After all, she must know about your disinclination toward church, right?

My opinion is that you probably ought to sit down with her some time and place you won't be interrupted (after the kids are in bed?) and talk this out. The simple fact is, arguing isn't the answer, not if you still want to reach a compromise--which is what you're going to have to do. After all, they're her kids, too. We here may disapprove of what she's apparently teaching them, but I would imagine you can name any number of people that you know personally who disapprove of what you want to teach them.

I vote for teaching tolerance. It worked for me. My wonderful Irish Catholic, Nova-watching mother was a great influence on me.
Unfortunately, This Exact Kind of Thing, Can Prove to Be a Deal-Breaker Long-Term ...

One of The Main Reasons Why My Ex and I Broke Up Was Because she Found Jesus, Now Normally This Wouldn't Be an Issue as I'm Not Much of a Believer in Anything, But The Group she Joined Quickly Made her Rather Sanctimonious and VERY Bigoted ...

That Alone, I Probably Could Have Worked Around, as I Told her, "I'm a Non-Practicing Jew, What it Exactly Is I'm Not Practicing, Doesn't Bother me Very Muuch!"

However, I Think What Ultimately Caused us to Lose Respect for Each Other, Was When she Insisted The Most Important Thing to her, Was Something I Could Never Do, Believe 100% That The Story of Noah's Ark Was Absolutely True!

[Gillianren]

See, I was trying not to go there.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

See, I was trying not to go there.
Yeah, I Could Tell ...

But as Someone Who's Gone Through, at Least Something Liike What Avatar28 Seems to Be Facing, I Felt a Need to Play Bad Cop to your Good ...

To Avatar28, The Best Thing you Can Do Is Juust Hang In There, Everyone's Riight, Conversation Is your Ally Riight, That and Not Being Afraid to Compromise!

GOOD Luck!

[Avatar28]

Thanks, guys. Hopefully we can sit down and work this out. And, yes, jseefcoot is exactly right my biggest concern is the kids being taught this anti-science stance before they have a chance to make their own informed decision. I want them to grow up to be more open-minded than that. For that matter, I would like to get my wife to be more open-minded than that. She's a smart girl, I just have to break through all this misinformation. We do have some nice science books and I have tried to sit down with them and go through them. Maybe doing that more often would be a good idea. I wish we had a better science museum in the city. The one we have is pretty old and doesn't update their exhibits all that often (and most of what they do have is health related rather than the more physical sciences).

[Sticks]

Unfortunately, This Exact Kind of Thing, Can Prove to Be a Deal-Breaker Long-Term ...

One of The Main Reasons Why My Ex and I Broke Up Was Because she Found Jesus, Now Normally This Wouldn't Be an Issue as I'm Not Much of a Believer in Anything, But The Group she Joined Quickly Made her Rather Sanctimonious and VERY Bigoted ...


Makes me kind of curious as to which group that is. In my time I have looked at a number of groups, some classsed as cults, and insisting spouses work on their other half in a hard sell manner is highly suspicious, as Biblically the approach is to be low level soft sell and playing the long game.

Avatar28 as I mentioned before, would it cause problems if you asked your wife if anyone in her church was putting her under pressure about you not being one of them?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Makes me kind of curious as to which group that is. In my time I have looked at a number of groups, some classsed as cults, and insisting spouses work on their other half in a hard sell manner is highly suspicious, as Biblically the approach is to be low level soft sell and playing the long game.

Avatar28 as I mentioned before, would it cause problems if you asked your wife if anyone in her church was putting her under pressure about you not being one of them?
It Was a Northern Extension of The Southern Baptist Conference, One Which Was FAR Closer to Fred Phelps than it Was to Martin Luther King Jr. In its Abillity to Play Niice with Others ...

I Knew The End Was Getting Close, When she Told a Buddhist to her Face, "Meditation Lets Evil In," The Buddhist of Course Went Off On her for That but My Ex Couldn't See Why, So I Simply Told her, "You Basically Told her Buddhists Are Evil!"

As for The Low Level Sell, That's How they Got her, And I Doubt they Would Have, Except they Made her Afraid of Hell, Which Quite Frankly Is a Rather Poor Reason to Join Any Faith!!!

[jseefcoot]

Remember as you try to break through all of the 'misinformation' -- to your wife, you are the one who is misinformed. She likely has as much interset in bringing you around to her point of view as she does your kids.

I think the best approach is to agree right from the start that you will likely always disagree on this topic, and that to prevent the kids from being caught up in the middle you should either avoid it completely (letting the children do all of their seeking/learning/researching independently) or address it openly, from a common and open-minded perspective (letting them understand that no one can definitively say 'this is the answer' and sharing with your wife the responsibilty of educating them i.e. this is the scientific belief and this is the religious belief).

As I have stated before, I don't hold any particular faith. I firmly believe in everything science has taught me. But I am also open to the possiblibty that perhaps there is something, or someone, that does not exist on our level of being. Lack of proof does not negate the possiblity of some thing from existing, or some process from working. To my way of thinking, everyone should be free to make up their own minds, based on their own experiences, and no person gains enough life experience to tackle something so fundamental as religious belief before they are perhaps twenty or even thirty years old. The world is far too complex to know what is going on when you're ten.

[Sticks]

I always thought that talking about Hell was treading on the hard sell end of things.

If I can remember the soft sell, that is you exhibit something that others want, and are therefore attracted, with no coersion on any side.

FWIW

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I always thought that talking about Hell was treading on the hard sell end of things.

If I can remember the soft sell, that is you exhibit something that others want, and are therefore attracted, with no coersion on any side.

FWIW
Yeah, That's Why it Always Struck me as a Dirty, Underhanded Thiing to Do to her ...

As a Further Irony, Before they Got to her we Were Both Jewish and Didn't Even Believe in Hell, as a Matter of Fact, The Entire Idea of a Supposedly Loving G-d Condemning People to Burn for All Eternity, Even Though their Belief or Non-Belief Is Allegedly Predestined, Strikes me as Far Too Zoroastrian for My Tastes, Anyway ...

Moreover, Because their Mixed Hard/Soft Approach Towards Coerced Conversion, Seems So Out of Line With The Way she Was Beforehand, I Would Still Juust Love to Yell at them:

"Hey Thanks for All your Help Guys, you Went and BROKE My Girlfriend!"

[SolusLupus]

"Hey Thanks for All your Help Guys, you Went and BROKE My Girlfriend!"

While funny, it isn't quite true. She took the arguments, bought them, and now believes them; while they sent the message, they could not force her to listen, nor could they force her to accept it.

While I dislike the message existing in the first place, they didn't really "break" her. She "broke" herself.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

While funny, it isn't quite true. She took the arguments, bought them, and now believes them; while they sent the message, they could not force her to listen, nor could they force her to accept it.

While I dislike the message existing in the first place, they didn't really "break" her. She "broke" herself.
Yeah, Sometiimes I Wonder That Very Thought Myself ...

I Mean she Did Have a Submissive and Naive Personality, and Therefore All Too Likely to Believe Whatever Was Told to her ...

Then Again, she Also Had a Tendancy to Hurt herself, And Was Therefore Even MORE Liikely to Ruin her Chances of a Relationship With me, By Insisting I Believe The Earth Was Only 6,000 Years Old!

[SolusLupus]

Personally, I would ask her why I should believe that the Earth was only 6,000 years old. If she's going to make a claim, have her back it up.

[Gillianren]

Why ask? The answer is going to be, "Because the Bible/my church says so."

Never mind that there's no evidence for the date accepted by your average YEC even in the Bible, that the 4004 BC date was calculated by a man who just added up the ages of everyone mentioned, which doesn't strike me as terribly effective. However, that is the answer a Young Earth Creationist will give you.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Personally, I would ask her why I should believe that the Earth was only 6,000 years old. If she's going to make a claim, have her back it up.
Tried That ...

I BELIEVE That's Riight About When she Moved Out ...

Wouldn't Have Been So Bad, Except she Dragged Out Actually Breaking Up Wiith me, for Another 6 Months!

:wall:

[SolusLupus]

Tried That ...

I BELIEVE That's Riight About When she Moved Out ...

Wouldn't Have Been So Bad, Except she Dragged Out Actually Breaking Up Wiith me, for Another 6 Months!

:wall:

Honestly, in my opinion, it's probably for the best. I don't think that you would be happy with someone like that; if it wasn't over Creationism, it would've been over something else.

I just hope she someday learns how to compromise.

Why ask? The answer is going to be, "Because the Bible/my church says so."

See, that's where you try to lead them into thinking about where the Bible says that, or why the Church does so. When you convince someone to try to look up information for themselves, you teach them to fish.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Honestly, in my opinion, it's probably for the best. I don't think that you would be happy with someone like that; if it wasn't over Creationism, it would've been over something else.

I just hope she someday learns how to compromise.
Yeah ...

Hopefully, That's What'll Happen ...

For SOME Reason I Doubt it Though!

[Sticks]

In our lot there is always the injunction to examine things ourselves, which is why I mentioned that lot from Berea, (where ever that is today)

If something is true, evolution or creation, young Earth or Old Earth, the Bible, Koran or HHGTTG, it will hold up against severe investigation.

It sounds like those other groups were gravitating to authoritarianism, by the sound of things.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

In our lot there is always the injunction to examine things ourselves, which is why I mentioned that lot from Berea, (where ever that is today)

If something is true, evolution or creation, young Earth or Old Earth, the Bible, Koran or HHGTTG, it will hold up against severe investigation.

It sounds like those other groups were gravitating to authoritarianism, by the sound of things.
VERY Muuch So ...

Actually, I Tend to Gravitate Towards your Viewpoint Myself ...

I Liike to Call it The Whatever Is True IS True Theory, Although it Is More Likely a Theorem!

[Gillianren]

See, that's where you try to lead them into thinking about where the Bible says that, or why the Church does so. When you convince someone to try to look up information for themselves, you teach them to fish.

You haven't gone through this with real people much, have you? I met a very intelligent man once who both believed in a Noachian flood and believed that, should the polar ice caps melt entirely, the sea level on Earth wouldn't rise substantively, and he actually didn't see the contradiction. As long as we avoided any subject that touched on creationism (fairly easily, given where I knew him), I could forget that he was so stubbornly ignorant on this one subject. (Well, two, technically.)

[Sticks]

As I said before, ad nauseum, I do not think the validity or not of Creation, Evolution, Big Bang or Noahic flood is an issue here.

The issue could be undue pressure from a third party to get some kind of result.

Coming from the "faith" end of the spectrum that is disturbing as it implies that people supposedly in our camp, have gone off the rails.

Unfortunately it happens, it was recognised in the NT letters in various places from imposing the Mosaic law on gentiles to what is believed to be gnosticism. We need to keep our own house in order, as I expect those in the strictly "Scientific" camp (for want of a better term) strive to do as well.

I just wish we in both camps could get together more and try to get along.

At least people like Phil and Randi help keep us straight

For the record we have a similar situation here where the wife is a Christian and the Husband is not. As far as I am aware, no pressure has ever been put on her over this. We even have the reverse case where the Husband is a Christian and the wife is not. Again no one is on his case about this. Which as I understand things, is the way it should be done.

If this third party in Avatar28 wife's church exists, they need to be confronted over the undue strees they have inflicted on the wife. If the leadership of that church is not this third party, then a formal complaint needs to be raised.

[LurchGS]

In my opinion, unless they are peaching killing in the name of God, you should drop the issue.

There are thousands of people who had very religious parents who are now atheists or agnostics. There are also thousands of people who were brought up with no religion and are very religious. The kid will figure out what is best.

Hear hear! It is thoroughly pointless to get into an argument about religion. It generally does nothing but raise tempers and make enemies. If you want to argue *facts*, of course, that's different. "The Bible says this" and "The Bible says that".

Arguing opinion? silliness

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Hear hear! It is thoroughly pointless to get into an argument about religion. It generally does nothing but raise tempers and make enemies. If you want to argue *facts*, of course, that's different. "The Bible says this" and "The Bible says that".

Arguing opinion? silliness
Ah, But WHERE Do you Draw The Line?

Is Evolution itself Merely an Opinion?

And, If Not, How Can you Justify Allowing your Spouse to Tell your Children That it Is?

[LurchGS]

Ah, But WHERE Do you Draw The Line?

Is Evolution itself Merely an Opinion?

And, If Not, How Can you Justify Allowing your Spouse to Tell your Children That it Is?

well, my spouse isn't insane..well, ok, maybe she is. Let's not go there.
Anyway - she's got a solid enough base in the scientific world that she understands Evolution, and accepts that science is a more reliable way to predict outcomes. It doesn't hinder her belief in God.

The kids have been brought up with both sides of the discussion swirling around them. It's their choice to make.

Oops - didn't answer the question. THe line is drawn in accordance with my relationship with the individual, and my hopes for the future. My wife and I don't fight about God... my next door neighbor and I do - in fun. My sisters in law and I.. well, it's a good thing we don't live near each other.

[jseefcoot]

[QUOTE=Sticks]I just wish we in both camps could get together more and try to get along.
For the record we have a similar situation here where the wife is a Christian and the Husband is not. As far as I am aware, no pressure has ever been put on her over this. We even have the reverse case where the Husband is a Christian and the wife is not. Again no one is on his case about this. Which as I understand things, is the way it should be done.QUOTE]

Tolerance is the way, my friend. I have always mistrusted any religious approach that did not allow for tolerance. Religious tolerance is one of the foundations of our country, and so to me it is even un-American to be critical of another's beliefs. This is the one country on the planet, in fact, where people of all religions should be able to gather peacefully and without fear of harassment from others. I find it very very sad that this is not the case, has rarely been, and might never be.

[farmerjumperdon]

My experience is that the selling style is about the person, not the particular item being sold.

And you are almost never going to teach or enlighten them. Their dogma precludes learning about certain specific things. To be more accurate, their dogma prohibits them from learning certain specific things.

[gwiz]

Well, I'm a (non-militant) atheist who has been married these many years to a (non-fundamentalist) Christian. We agreed that our son could go to an Anglican (episcopalian in the US?) church school, well it never hurt me, and that we wouldn't pressurise him either way. In the event, he now has Christian beliefs but no problem with evolution or the big bang, either. This is a situation I can live with.

[Gillianren]

Well, I'm a (non-militant) atheist who has been married these many years to a (non-fundamentalist) Christian. We agreed that our son could go to an Anglican (episcopalian in the US?) church school, well it never hurt me, and that we wouldn't pressurise him either way. In the event, he now has Christian beliefs but no problem with evolution or the big bang, either. This is a situation I can live with.

Yes, Anglican is Episcopalian here. However, I'm inclined to doubt that you pressurized your son no matter what.

[Donnie B.]

Yes, Anglican is Episcopalian here. However, I'm inclined to doubt that you pressurized your son no matter what.Unless, of course, he came up too fast and was in danger of getting the bends... :shifty:

[Avatar28]

Well I have a partial answer. It seems they have a new pastor at their church recently. My wife was complaining before a week or two ago about her and her sister not liking him. She says that he was preaching against wearing swimsuits (not just bikinis, swimsuits, even modest one pieces. He is even against wearing shorts and the like. What an extremist.

Anyways, she says that this past week in church he was preaching against associating with nonbelievers (and by nonbelievers, I'm sure he meant HIS brand, of course). He says that even if you've known them for years you should completely disfellowship them and have nothing to do with them. Claims that he was at dinner with a friend he had known for years and the subject came up. When he found out his friend was an athiest, he got up, paid, and left without saying another word and hasn't spoken to him since. Yeesh. What a winner. Thankfully wife saw that as being full of fecal matter and doesn't buy it. I'm encouraging her to take her sister and and their family and jump ship to another church.

[Sticks]

How about leading a coup against this new pastor instead. Getting rid of full time worker can be done and if you can get people to stand up to him. Why should a new guy force someone out, who can then say he is doing the Lord's work in getting rid of false brethren after they leave.

The swimsuit issue I have heard of briefly, but the non association issue is disturbing. If we are not to associate with unbelivers, then how are we to bring people in, as we were told to do in scripture. Maybe you can use that as an excuse to get rid of him.

This seems to be a misapplication of 2Corinthians 6:14. If I have time I will look into that for you, so you have a defence.

[farmerjumperdon]

She says that he was preaching against wearing swimsuits (not just bikinis, swimsuits, even modest one pieces. He is even against wearing shorts and the like. What an extremist.

Pretty absurd. So are we supposed to go swimming fully clothed, or is swimming anti-Christian for him and his like?

[Moose]

Pretty absurd. So are we supposed to go swimming fully clothed, or is swimming anti-Christian for him and his like?

You think he might be holding out for some old-fashionned skinny-dipping?

[Sticks]

Pretty absurd. So are we supposed to go swimming fully clothed, or is swimming anti-Christian for him and his like?

If I understand this one correctly

Modern swimming costumes are immodest apparel, and women are injucted to dress modestly in the NT. However people assume this means not dress skimpily, and one preacher pointed out that if someone came to church wearing a very expensive gown and dripping with jewels, that would be immodest as well.

Anyhue by exposing too much flesh, you incite lustful thoughts in others which is an utter abomination etc...

What I also heard is that some churches in the US also preach against mixed swimming, on the grounds this promotes sexual immorality.

This guy sounds like a real neurotic, and you would be doing everyone a favour if he were removed from office. (How did he get the job in the first place)

[Tinaa]

This is turning into a religious thread. Please get back on topic or I'll have to close it.

[jseefcoot]

I think, Avatar28, that you have found the source of your problem. This new pastor will make it more difficult for you to provide an open-ended solution to the issue, especially given the extremes to which he is going with his interpretations. I think you have done the right thing by suggesting she move to another church, because adding this pastor to the equation will probably do more harm than good. The end goal of providing a religiously/scientifically balanced home environment for your children is the more important, I think.

This is a good example of one of the extremes we often face when dealing with our peers who choose to believe in some faith or another. I hope to never experience the same thing, but the comments in this thread have been very illuminating even if at times they strain the limit of what is acceptable on this board. This is one of the few places of which I know where I can engage in such a discussion, so thanks to BAUT for not closing down the thread.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Well I have a partial answer. It seems they have a new pastor at their church recently. My wife was complaining before a week or two ago about her and her sister not liking him. She says that he was preaching against wearing swimsuits (not just bikinis, swimsuits, even modest one pieces. He is even against wearing shorts and the like. What an extremist.

Anyways, she says that this past week in church he was preaching against associating with nonbelievers (and by nonbelievers, I'm sure he meant HIS brand, of course). He says that even if you've known them for years you should completely disfellowship them and have nothing to do with them. Claims that he was at dinner with a friend he had known for years and the subject came up. When he found out his friend was an athiest, he got up, paid, and left without saying another word and hasn't spoken to him since. Yeesh. What a winner. Thankfully wife saw that as being full of fecal matter and doesn't buy it. I'm encouraging her to take her sister and and their family and jump ship to another church.
Something Tells me he's ONLY Liike That, Because he's Insecure In his Own Beliefs ...

Check Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=fc81bfdd0ee7feb1&hp&ex=1154232000&partner=homepage), (free registration required) for a Preacher Who Isn't ...

Perhaps your Wife Would Be Happier at a Church Liike That?

[Tinaa]

Okay. I tried to get y'all back on track. Closed