Growing up in an irreligious household.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by GePap
If you raise her to think on her own, take risks, examine her spirituality, and make it clear you love her regardless of her eventual beliefs, and that you shall support her no matter what, there should be absolutely no problems.

I've had problems of my own in childhood, so I'll offer what I have learned the hard way:

If you rely solely upon yourself for guidance, you have nothing to fall back on when your Self fails, and you collapse.

Self-analysis has the downside in that wisdom by analysis relies heavily on one's ability to analyse. What if you analyse your analyses, and find them to be inadequate?

As for unconditional love and support: If childhood is easy, then one learns to cope with harsh reality much later in life - and to change an old habit is harder.

In all ways of raising your children, there will be positives and negatives. Indeed there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way, just a juggling of different factors.
No man alive can ever pick a perfect childhood - all we can do is hope that parenthood does not destroy what it tries to protect.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by ajbera
Religion serves two functions, one practical (a moral framework for acceptable behavior) and one spiritual (to tackle humanity's belief or questions about the meaning of life and the feelings that there's 'something' out there).

There are more uses to most tools than explained in their instruction manuals.
These 2 are not the only uses for religion!
For example, I can see Religion not as a moral framework but an inspirator which can lead people to unite.
Not as a practical set of laws, but as an emotional impulse.

teach the kid the proper way to behave.

The way to behave is situational at best. IMO There is no 'proper' way to behave, save that some means of action produce different results than others - and you may want one particular result.

teach her right and it'll help her develop into a fulfilled and productive person.

I've seen plenty of counterexamples where a person that was taught 'the one true way' later became frustrated and counterproductive as they re-searched for a different solution.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by JohnT
I do think the idea that it is wrong for a believing adult to inculcate their child into their religion (as has been argued to me on another board) is bizarre and kinda obliterates half the purpose of parenthood - to raise your child in the manner that you see fit.

Parenthood isn't only about the virtues of the parent.
You can raise a child with the virtues of their environment, too.
I've been toying with a theory that beliefs cannot be concretely ascribed to things... maybe it's not about your beliefs, or their beliefs, or even the child's own beliefs.

Belief is only one part of the human existence - to believe that parenthood is about nurturing only one part of this human existance is awkward - it's about nurturing all parts together.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by JohnT
Well, do note that I think that it is silly to ask a religious person not to instruct their child in their own religion.
...
I've just never had the need to actually think about the subject before

Heh. You never have the need to think about things... you're just choosing to do what you can for your children (I guess).
You could have asked the question before the child, or not at all - some of the best parents act on honest instinct, not thought.

With instinct or thought, religion or not, there are many ways to approach the issue. Probably more ways than we (all put together) are aware of...

[Spec]

Best place to grown up imo.

Let's you make your own choices.

Spec.

[Enigma_Nova]

and we know that we will be accountable to God for our own actions.

This may or may not be true, but JohnT is first accountable to Sophie, and we are all accountable to ourselves.

Sophie, obviously is not the same way, she needs your help, and you are responsible for her and her upbringing.

Quite arrogant to think that children have no right to reason or self-determination - parents do have more experience but experience is also tainting.
To be ignorant of your child's own impetus is to be ignorant of a part of yourself.
I think that we should respect children as instructors to how an incorrupted humanity should live - not a liability that we have to weave into our New way of living.

But this is all biased by my experience as an ignored youngster - my experience may be tained just as easily as yours.

[Spec]

Do you have kids Enigme?

By reading your post I would guess no. Because before I had kids I thought pretty much like you....but it changes.
Until my kid gets to 8 or 10 I'll start getting the same thinking I had (like you just described) but til then, It's pretty much up to me and his mom.

Remember than Sophie is only 2.

Spec.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

Sorry I missed this post:

If the Resurrection was needed to prove the legitimacy of God's message as brought by Jesus, why was such a thing not needed for his previous messages? People believed the other prophets, didn't they? If they didn't, that would make their appearance in the Bible a little inexplicable...

Read the accounts. Many people persecuted the prophets in the OT, just because they railed against those in power as not following the dictates of the Law. The same is with Christ, even though he performed many signs and wonders, such as healing people, reviving Lazarus, etc. many refused to believe.

This is why Jesus says he is going to 'pull a Jonah,' who rested in the body of the whale for three days, in that:

"a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign shall be provided, except the sign of Jonah."

Now, if one believes in miracles, the evidence of the miracles is enough to believe that Jesus is a Prophet sent by God. It is not enough to believe that he is God made flesh. This is why the resurrection is the necessary proof, none of the other Prophets died and were resurrected like Christ.

At any rate, there is no need for the resurrection for someone who doesn't believe Jesus is divine to believe that Jesus had the best moral philosophy around, just as someone doesn't need to believe Kant was resurrected to believe his was a the best moral philosophy (or any number of philosophers).

But Jesus does not give us this option. Jesus never claimed to be a prophet, he claimed to be God incarnate. If you believe him to say the truth, you must then make him to be a liar. If he is then a liar, than how do you know when he tells the truth?

In short, there are only two proper responses to Christ, before the resurrection. Either he is God, or he is a madman who ought to be stoned for blasphemy.

John 8:48-58

The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

[Ben Kenobi]

For example, I can see Religion not as a moral framework but an inspirator which can lead people to unite.

Enigma:

Unite where?

I agree that there needs to be two parts of religion, the motivating force and drive, as well as a guide to improve moral behavior. The two ought not to seperate; for the emotion without the instruction can put us in the wrong direction, while the direction without the drive never gets us to take the first step.

[st_swithin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would say they are.

Buddha never claimed to be God, neither did Muhammed.

Both could be ranked as prophets, on par with all the other Jewish prophets.

Just because people who believe in Buddha don't come knocking on your door early in the morning in His Name doesn't make Buddha any less a deity - his followers just observe a little thing called courtesy, something the US sees less and less of every day. I can name plenty of followers of prophets who don't know what this means - Joseph Smith comes to mind, as well as Jews for Jesus. Buddha's as much a god as Jehovah or Elvis - it's a matter of belief, not semantics.

I'm not bagging on any other religions or beliefs here, but the methods for getting the word out are, to my mind, questionable. I mean, according to Jewish faith, I'm by birth not one of the chosen, so I'm already doomed. Conversion is just a token customary procedure which still doesn't do anything for me; same with marriage. Therefore, I should be able to do and say whatever the he11 I want and it shouldn't make a bit of difference in terms of my immortal soul. Same thing according to a lot of those Christian groups who decree that nonbelievers are going right to he11 - we're all bound for that bus with Martin Scorcese and Denis Leary, along with everyone who doesn't read, already has another faith, or couldn't care less. I notice there are a lot of Asian people on this bus. I guess they all got the email from Buddah too.