Child raising

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

My girlfriend is Catholic while I am agnostic. I have heard through some unreliable sources that in order to marry I have to agree to raise my children Catholic. Personally I want to show my children both sides. Let my wife-to-be show them your way and I'll show them mine, and in the end let the children chose as they grow. I have nothing wrong with them becoming Catholics if they want but I don't want to make that choice for them. What are your thoughts on this?

-- Garion Roberts (www.acara21@yahoo.com), February 26, 2005

Answers

Response to Child raiseing

It is your job to make that choice for them until they are old enough to do that on thier own. It seems that is a common misconseption that parents seem to make, dont force god onto your children. You are the prime example and influence on your childrens lives. If you are able to alow your children to sway thier beliefs any which way they want, they will do so and it wont be out of good intentions and they may give up god alltogether. God is our father, and as the father of your children you have to raise your kids by his example.

My advise to you is either convert, have your girlfriend convert or findsomeone else all together.

-- kat (riesoracle@hotmail.com), February 26, 2005.


Garion, --

If you see nothing wrong with them becoming Catholics ''if they want,'' why do you find it wrong for the childrens' MOTHER to want that?

''It's OK for the kids, IF they want; NOT so for Mom if SHE wants.'' What you mean is YOU don't want your children having faith in God. Be honest. Maybe you don't trust people who believe; but when they DO, we should respect them. Not keep young souls away from them; as if somehow they'd endanger your kids.

Because, if this is so; how could a father think: ''Nothing wrong with them becoming Catholics if they want.'' It's either dangerous or it isn't. It's good or it's forbidden. And their Mother ought to know if it's GOOD. --Not you, because your experience is no proof at all. Agnosticism is a poor thing to offer your son or daughter.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.


Personally I want to show my children both sides. Let my wife-to- be show them your way and I'll show them mine, and in the end let the children chose as they grow."

An analogy to the above:

Mother has been taught what it takes to truly nourish a body with the various kinds of food, and she wants to help her kids grow up strong and healthy.

Father is not sure about anything having to do with nutrition, but he knows what he likes: candy and "pop" and snack chips and huge hunks of meat with lots of juicy fat, etc..

Father says, "Personally I want my children to try all kinds of foods. Let my wife feed them what she wants them to have, I'll feed them my favorites. And in the end let the children choose as they grow."

Guess what the kids will choose? A diet as "empty" and damaging to the body as agnosticism is to the soul. Let your wife feed their souls with NUTRITIOUS FOOD, confused sir, and keep the agnosticism to yourself.

-- (Sorry@Can't.GiveIt), February 26, 2005.


and keep the agnosticism to yourself.

I disagree !! As you will show it , that way , you just try to hide some things !! Both parents need to raise the kids , the kids need to see EVERYTHING !! Later , they can choose/decide what they want !! No- one has the right to force them !! I was raised catholic , but I saw it was not my way of & for life !! Does that make me a bad / evil person ??

You simply can't force someone to choose , except for criminals !! But actually , they have made the choice by themselves too !!

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 27, 2005.


I was raised catholic , but I saw it was not my way of & for life !! Does that make me a bad / evil person ??

Not "a bad / evil person." Just a seriously wrong person. You didn't "see" that "catholic was not your way". You just "thought" (and still wrongly think) that it "was not your way".

Pitiably, you just latched onto my last phrase ("keep the agnosticism to yourself"), without using the brain God gave you to see the truth of my analogy. This kind of shallowness is so common among materialists like you.

-- (Sorry@Can't.GiveIt), February 27, 2005.



i completely agree with you garion

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 27, 2005.

(Sorry@Can't.GiveIt)

Well , I disagree again !! I'm not even "just a seriously wrong" person !! And who says I'm a materialist ??

Why I am not catholic anymore , for instance:

It was my parents who decided this !! OK , but later , when I could make choices on my own: When you don't like it (anymore) , or you (really) don't love it anymore , it's better to leave , than stay on , and force yourself and become unhappy afterall !!

Also , let's say , on a lot of things , I disagree with the pope (90%) !!

I don't follow any religion !! That's my good right !!

btw: Pitiably Why ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 27, 2005.


Wow I did not think my question would spark this kind of controversy. To an extent I agree with Laurent. I was raised Christian. I followed it because that was all I knew. Though I am agnostic now, I know I will find what I seek and in the end I will want to show it to my children. Even if that is Catholic I don't want to chose for them. My parents id that to me. I took all the vows and in the end I was bound to a way I did not believe. I believe heavily in choice. my children will not be ready for this choice until near adulthood, but I will not make it for them.

But on the other side of the coin I can understand how Catholic parents would want to share their faith. I just don't feel it is right to chain someone else before they chose for themselves.

-- Garion Roberts (acara21@yahoo.com), February 27, 2005.


Garion,

Maybe if you can keep the idea of "forcing" belief out of your mindset, it can be a more natural inclination for your children.

I don't think belief can successfully be "forced" on anyone. Look at all of the people who describe how their parents "forced" belief. This is where the problem lies. It must be presented as a way of life. A good thing---not something imposed---it should be something we are lucky to have.

That then, will be left to your own creativity as parents. I guess you don't want to bring your children to faith in the same way your parents brought you, --- with this feeling of being forced.

You "know" and understand something that doesn't work. The idea would be to work with your wife on something that does.

BTW I was raised Catholic, became agnostic but returned to the Church. My parents never forced religion on me and always wanted me to come back when I left. I was never instilled with negativity about the Catholic faith. My experiences growing up with it were only positive. My parents did something right. It as me who "decided." But I was given the Catholic faith in a "good way." It wasn't forced. I wasn't threatened. There is a way to do it.

Your children "will" ultimately decide later; they will come to a crossroads in adulthood. If they get there with negative feelings toward their faith, they won't be equiped to make a reasonable decision.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 27, 2005.


>"I believe heavily in choice. my children will not be ready for this choice until near adulthood, but I will not make it for them."

Do you allow them to choose whether they will attend school or not? Or do you make that choice for them? Do you allow them to make their own choices whether or not to receive medical care? Surgery? Or do you make those choices for them? How about entertainment? Let them choose anything they want? X-rated movies? Or do you make those choices for them? Do you set any kind of curfew for them? Or is it acceptable to you if they choose to stay out all night? Do they have set bed times while young? Do you make sure they brush their teeth and keep themselves clean and dress appropriately? Or do you just stand back and go with whatever they choose? It is a parent's responsibility to choose what is right and proper for a child under their care. Later they will be old enough to will make all these choices for themselves. That is a given. But if they have not been allowed (= required) to experience at an early age what is right and good and proper and normal, in the name of some loosely defined notion of "choice" and/or "tolerance", then they will have no foundation upon which to base appropriate adult choices, and will end up as so many adults do, trying to live their lives on the shifting sands of "whatever feels good", lacking any concept of objective truth. That would constitute the greatest possible breach of parental responsibility.

I'm sure you do make such decisions for your children as I have outlined above. It is tragic when parents who give such attention to temporal matters as these, which will benefit their children for only a short lifetime, neglect the training of their children in matters that will impact upon their existence for all eternity. Of course, you can't give what you don't possess. You, by your own admission, know nothing of spiritual realities. Your wife does. For the sake of your children, let her impart to them the truth she possesses, while you continue in your own search for that truth. It matters far more than issues of hygiene or education or social interaction.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 27, 2005.



For the sake of your children, let her impart to them the truth she possesses, while you continue in your own search for that truth.

What is the truth ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 27, 2005.


Laurent:
The truth is forever-- God is our Lord; and He gave us his only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour. We know it for certain.

Some souls don't want to know. You and others like the agnostic fail to understand the truth. It's your own fault. Pride in your own wisdom keeps you from believeing. Jesus gave more than enough proof of this eternal truth. But the proud man wants to live in darkness no matter how wonderful Jesus proved himself to be. You think your feeble intellect is more wonderful. It's apthetic; a worm calling himself better than than heaven and earth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.


The truth is forever

Agree

You and others like the agnostic fail to understand the truth.

So tell me , what is the truth ??

Anyway , who says I know what is true ?? Where have you seen I said / wrote: "My truth is true" ??

You think your feeble intellect is more wonderful.

You simply criticize & insult everyone who's disagree with YOU !!

It's apthetic; a worm calling himself better than than heaven and earth.

You just love it , don't you ?? Well , feel free , go ahead !!

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 27, 2005.


Garion,

Raise your children in the way they should go--and they will not depart from it.

That's a heavy responsibility.

Be very careful what you teach your kids.

And I would add that there is nothing but hopelessness in a Godless faith.

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.


can u prove the bible tells the truth?

NO!

so shut up about telling that everyone who disagrees with this is an idiot eugene

for taking something as a complete truth evidence is needed.

you don't have any evidence that the bible tells the truth

end of discussion

...it's just your personal opinion that cannot be taken as an objective fact...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 27, 2005.



sdqa,

The evidence is at the cross. Come to the foot of the cross.

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.


Laurent: Here's a good example of your own, typical intellectualist judgment. It's the child who never learned manners, sqad --

''end of discussion!'' --That means HIS END.

''...it's just your personal opinion that cannot be taken as an objective fact...'' --That's HIS OPINION. sdqa's ridiculous opinions are SUPER; and a Catholic's are nothing. Shabby ones, end of discussion. But-- He hangs around the Catholic forum! To listen to our opinions. Just like YOU!

If this place is so full of personal opinions that don't mean objective facts, --What the devil are you two doing here? Get a better opinion someplace else, where they don't care about God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.


If this place is so full of personal opinions that don't mean objective facts, --What the devil are you two doing here?

What is the truth ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 27, 2005.


Did you come to a Catholic forum because you expect the truth? I think so.

But you received the truth and keep asking --What is the truth? We tell you the truth. Just accept it or deny it; because you have it.

Stop coming back to ask. Start thinking in your heart: ''Maybe Catholics are right. It must be true, there IS A REAL GOD. I will have FAITH in Him.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.


I have received the truth ?? Well , in that case , don't bother !!

Why I'm here , I may give my view , as long I'm not insulting / violate the visitors !!

Why are there so many religion , all say they are / tell the truth !! As you said , the truth is forever , so , what than is the truth ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 27, 2005.


can you prove that the bible tells the truth eugene?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 27, 2005.

No, he can't. He doesn't even attest to the Bible's complete and full authority in the matter of the things of God. Eugene believes that the Scriptures--apart from man-made tradition--is somehow unauthoritive, even though the very Scriptures that reveal God to us in the first place tell us otherwise:

In favor of Scripture, 2 Timothy 3:14-17:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. *All Scripture* is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Against tradition, Mark 7:6-9:

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.


I've had to prove it, sdcq, to MYSELF first. Or did you think I was always this kind of believer?

It might really amaze you how I proved the Word of God is true. I know you prefer to call us liars. But I tell you the honest TRUTH.

He proved it MANY times to me, by answering my prayers. I prayed for so many things only HE could give me. He gave them to me every time. I prayed, He answered. Where has Jesus promised this to all Christians? In the Holy Bible, it's all there!

Not only that, Boy-San. About five times, when I was around twenty, I met the devil. (Or a devil; one of them.) He met me, too. He scared me to death almost; but this is what happened:

As I was dying of fright, I prayed to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, under my breath, while the devil was on me. He was on me like a horrible sound going crazy in my ears; the sound was like a stone scraping, very clear and loud. INSIDE me. The evil thing was so extremely close, as if he would SPEAK. But I only FELT him breathing.

Then I said to him; ''GO, DEVIL; You are repulsive and unholy; I hate you.'' (I was shaking with fear.) While I was silently asking Jesus; ''My Jesus, adorable and Sacred Heart, You who are my LOVE-- Take him away! Take away the demon.''

Then I felt great relief and happiness come over me. I was filled with happiness! Just when I called out to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in PRAYER. This happened to me about five times, I can't recall. The feeling was very intense and I never forgot. I KNOW who it was without any doubt. This is all a true story. I have made up NOTHING and I don't need more proof. I know the truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.


"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. *All Scripture* is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

There was no such thing as a New Testament when Paul wrote these words, and outside of the Epistles, no other books of the New Testament had been written at the time Paul made this declaration. Most likely, Paul did not even consider his own correspondences to be Scripture.

If you add to that fact, the verse where Paul says that these Scriptures have been around since the readers' infancy, then he must be talking about the Old Testament.

So the quote you cite actually tells how Paul felt the Old Testament was all that we needed.

On another note,

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it"

What?? THOSE from whom we learned it? That sounds like people actually teaching other people. It sure doesn't sound like Paul was a Sola Scriptura advocate like so many want to make him out to be. If he was, the Scripture he would have adhered to was the Old Testament.

Tim Kirschenheiter

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), February 27, 2005.


Anon is very sure of himself. Human pride, not faith.

He [Eugene] doesn't even attest to the ''Bible's complete and full authority in the matter of the things of God.''

OK; but show us in what passage God told you only the Bible is entitled to full authority in the matter of the things of God. ------

You can't. God never told us that. His Holy Word is all truth; but not by the Book alone. --If it is by the Book only; show me a passage that tells you so, anon. Do it; you're a Bible scholar. ONE PASSAGE. Where God says-- Take ONLY the Bible, words written down as the sole authority of your faith. Eugene believes that the Scriptures--apart from man-made tradition-- is somehow unauthoritive,

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.


There was no such thing as a New Testament when Paul wrote these words, and outside of the Epistles, no other books of the New Testament had been written at the time Paul made this declaration. Most likely, Paul did not even consider his own correspondences to be Scripture.

That is false Tim. Peter recognized Paul's letters as Scripture in His own writings:

2 Peter 3:15-16

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

If you add to that fact, the verse where Paul says that these Scriptures have been around since the readers' infancy, then he must be talking about the Old Testament.

There is no doubt that Paul was mostly refering to Old Testament Scriptures. However--you must allow for revelation. When God's Word says that *all Scripture is God breathed* and then Peter informs us that Paul wrote with the *wisdom of God*--out 2+2 together.

So the quote you cite actually tells how Paul felt the Old Testament was all that we needed.

I disgree.

On another note,

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it"

What?? THOSE from whom we learned it? That sounds like people actually teaching other people.

No, actually--it sounds like Paul is refering to the very prophets and apostles who wrote the inspired Scripture.

It sure doesn't sound like Paul was a Sola Scriptura advocate like so many want to make him out to be. If he was, the Scripture he would have adhered to was the Old Testament.

Like I said--I disagree.

Paul included Luke's gospel as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18: For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”...in reference to Luke 10:7: Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

Jude quotes from Peter:

Jude 1:17-18...But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.”

...in reference to 2 Peter 3:2-3: I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.

**********************************

I posted some of that just to show you that the apostles themselves recognized their own writings as inspired Scripture.

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.


You can't prove that. Not even close. An apostle recognized clearly the oral teachings of another apostle were inspired. But it would be impossible to say anybody but Timothy, or Titus ever saw the pastoral epistles in their whole lives. You're groping for an answer; busted!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.

Anon:

One more thing;

Come back when you can read us that passage; in which Christians are told that they will learn their faith solely from the Bible. With no other rule of faith. Get it from anyplace in the scripture you can see it. But GET IT, and show it to us. Prove Sola Scriptura from the Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.


Eugene,

Clearly these early Christians had their New Testament Scriptures in written form, and were circulating them and refering to them as God- breathed!

2 Peter 3:15-16

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And I think 2 Tim 3:14-17 is sufficient to support the idea that Scripture is our guiding and authoritive means to understanding God and His plan for our salvation:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it {God's Word}, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. *All Scripture* is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.


Anon-

Please explain the following verses then:

"Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by wird of mouth of by letter." 2 Thess 2:15

"So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well." 2 Tim 2 :1- 2

"Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim 1:13

"I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you." 1 Cor 11:2

Tim

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), February 27, 2005.


"Paul included Luke's gospel as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18: For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”...in reference to Luke 10:7: Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house."

It is quite impossible that Paul quoted the Gospel of Luke considering Paul died at the latest in 67 AD and Luke was written around 80 AD.

Tim Kirschenheiter

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), February 27, 2005.


If the Bible was intended for Christians' sole rule of faith, it would be written exactly so. Sola Scriptura is NOT a scriptural teaching. We are to hear the Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.

First I would like to thank Jim for his insight. My word were clouded, and he clarified my thoughts with great charisma.

To Paul M, We make choices for our children everyday. These are rarely more then short term teaching that will help them through life. Religion however is a lifetime choice though. I truly believe that it is a choice that should be made when a person is spiritually mature. I do not think that the choices are the same.

I also wish to thank Anon. You have some very deep thoughts and you do not seem to be quick to anger. I found your thoughts provocative.

Sdqa the proof of god or any spirituality is not something physical. One my “feel” it. I use the term feel loosely because there is now word in the English language to fit the way we feel god or other........powers? When you can feel with your heart you will be on your way to finding your place in a religion.

I would also like to say that several of you have attacked me and others here for different view. We are all adult (or at least I hope so) and we should act like it. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them too prideful for god or overrating their own intellect. I know I am ignorant that is why I search. Just because I have felt your god but do not serve him does not make me a horrible person. I have never tried to lead someone away from their faith, and I am truly happy most of you have found your place. I do not hate god in any way. I just feel my place is else ware.

-- Garion Roberts (acara21@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.


"To Paul M, We make choices for our children everyday. These are rarely more then short term teaching that will help them through life. Religion however is a lifetime choice though. I truly believe that it is a choice that should be made when a person is spiritually mature. I do not think that the choices are the same."

[i completely agree with you man,such a choise can be a lifetime choise and the person should choose for theirselves about this when they are spiritually mature]-sdqa

Sdqa the proof of god or any spirituality is not something physical. One my “feel” it. I use the term feel loosely because there is now word in the English language to fit the way we feel god or other........powers? When you can feel with your heart you will be on your way to finding your place in a religion.

[but that is a subjective matter that can only serve as proof for that particular person who experiences it,the proof for taking something as a truth can't be based just on someone's 'feeling']-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 28, 2005.


"These are rarely more then short term teaching that will help them through life. Religion however is a lifetime choice though".

A: What kind of doubletalk is that? You just said, correctly, that the choices we make for our children are intended to help them "through life". Then you said "religion however is a lifetime choice". What is the difference between "through life" and "lifelong"? The fact is, every form of guidance we give our children will affect them for the rest of their lives; and every form of guidance we fail to give them will also affect them all their lives. But the only form of guidance that will continue to have an effect after their earthly lives are over is spiritual guidance.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 28, 2005.


It's obvious from my lurking that the moderator of this board has not the fortitude to manage this board in a responsible manner. Why are SDQA and Laurent and others being allowed to lead astray the fragile souls who come here looking for good advise? I used to fault the individuals, but am now finding fault with the "authority" who allows such irresponsibility to continue. Taking away the ability to post does not take away the benefits of this board...they can still lurk at their leisure. As for me, I believe my lurking days may be finished. Time to find the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

-- Mike (n@n.n), February 28, 2005.

being allowed to lead astray the fragile souls

Excuse me !?!?!?!?

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 28, 2005.


That is exactly the issue...you are excused....and excused and excused and excused...

-- Mike (n@n.n), February 28, 2005.

Laurent:
Nobody hates you, even if you're an atheist. But it was understood long ago that you contribute NOTHING to the good sense of this forum. You may be a nice person; but here you're only distracting to faithful Catholics, and you often back up dangerous people, whom we don't appreciate coming here to fight our Church. Instead of helping by wise contributions you ruin some threads. Not because you're a BAD man; but really, it would be better if you never posted a word. You could lurk and read everthing without interfering. But hanging around just to contradict-- Not good.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.

Well , I'm guiding nobody !! Plz , don't follow me , I don't follow anyone !! But when people only get info from 1 side , well .... , it's not enough , don't you think ?? Besides , I'm attacking no- one !! But some person(s) are attacking non catholics , compare them with worms ; actually they wanna say , you're the lowest scum there is , so we need to get rid of you ?? Is that ok ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 28, 2005.


No- It is YOU, Laurent, who has no idea how tired people get of your interference for NOTHING. You give NOTHING here but the same old ''unbelief''.

We all want you to believe. If there was yet some chance to bring you to God, it would have some USE --arguing with you. You can't listen and so what USE is this? Just leave us alone!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.


But when people only get info from 1 side , well .... , it's not enough , don't you think ??

in certain cases where facts are under debate, yes, it is good to have both sides. however, people turn this into a general rule when they should not. i do not need to listen to countless hours of lies to understand the truth that was told to me at the beginning.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 28, 2005.


“But some person(s) are attacking non catholics , compare them with worms ; actually they wanna say , you're the lowest scum there is , so we need to get rid of you ?? Is that ok ??”

Nonsense, Laurent. I have never seen anybody say anything like that on this site. If anyone did say that, they would be promptly deleted for telling uncharitable lies.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 28, 2005.


Tim,

Luke was written around A.D. 60--and I don't pretend to know when Paul died.

-- (anon@anon.com), February 28, 2005.


Anon, could you provide sources for the date of Luke's writing?

Everything I have seen puts it between 80 and 90. I have also read a few books that said Mark was the earliest of the four and was written in 70 AD.

I do understand that scholars tend to disagree slightly on soem of the dating, so if you can provide some adequate sources, that would suffice for this little tidbit.

Tim Kirschenheiter

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), February 28, 2005.


[Laurent said --- But when people only get info from 1 side , well .... , it's not enough , don't you think ??]

Perhaps you don't realize this, but people go to a catholic forum to get a catholic answer. When people want to see another side of an issue, they go to a forum that has the other side. When they want to see both issues side by side, they go to a forum that handles the two sides of a debate. Now, which type of forum do you think this is?

GARION, I teach my children many things. I cannot teach them everything. So out of all the available knowledge in this world, I choose to teach my children what I know. What kind of parent would I be if I didn't show my children what I believe? I'd be depriving them of a natural resource of information - myself. Like you said, they will decide when they are older, so why not take the opportunity when they are younger to show them in depth about the catholic faith. I don't see anything wrong with a 5 year old asking God to help him out when he's upset, do you? Do you want to deprive your child this opportunity to speak to Someone who cares about him, even if later he chooses not to believe in God?

You're going to tell your kids about santa claus i bet. Why? They're only going to see later on that he doesn't exist anyway.

In which case, why do you think that teaching your children about God is "forcing" them to believe in Him... when teaching them about santa claus ISN'T forced.

Children believe too easily. That's why Jesus said to have faith like a child. That kind of faith is pure and too awesome for words. My children trust God more than I do. So you don't have to "force" your children at all.

At least do your wife the courtesy of allowing her to present "her" God while there is time. It's easy to be agnostic at any time in your life, but it's harder to believe in God after childhood is over because people choose darkness over light. (just for people who love to debate, i'm only speaking in generalities). So your wife will need this early childhood time to present God to your children.

Remember, they can always reject it later if they choose, so what are you worried about?

-- Rina (emailmarina@yahoo.com), March 01, 2005.


What a lovely post, Rina.

You show no trace of selfishness; all is generous and loving.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2005.


Very good point Rina,

I did just that. I was raised Catholic and it was always a positive experience. In spite of that, as a young adult I became quite agnostic and remained so for over 20 years.

My parents gave me the knowlege, the attitude and the openess to realize I could come back of my own accord. No "hitting bottom," or emotional crisis of any kind was involved. I just began to wake up over a period of time and began to realize it was the right thing to do. I still stuggle with faith issues,--- I tend to require rational explanations for everything so faith is not easy for me. In spite of my frequent struggles, "this return" is better.(for me)

I think I'm happier now,--- even though I was happy before. Something is more complete. Its difficult to explain. I never thought I would return. Twenty years ago I would argued you into the ground if you ever suggested I might come back.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 01, 2005.


Perhaps you don't realize this, but people go to a catholic forum to get a catholic answer. When people want to see another side of an issue, they go to a forum that has the other side. When they want to see both issues side by side, they go to a forum that handles the two sides of a debate. Now, which type of forum do you think this is?

[it depends from person to person,ask garion if he only wants catholic answers...]-sdqa

GARION, I teach my children many things. I cannot teach them everything. So out of all the available knowledge in this world, I choose to teach my children what I know. What kind of parent would I be if I didn't show my children what I believe? I'd be depriving them of a natural resource of information - myself. Like you said, they will decide when they are older, so why not take the opportunity when they are younger to show them in depth about the catholic faith. I don't see anything wrong with a 5 year old asking God to help him out when he's upset, do you? Do you want to deprive your child this opportunity to speak to Someone who cares about him, even if later he chooses not to believe in God?

[do you teach your 5 year olds also about sex? and reproduction? and what about nuclear physics? and what about psychology?

i don't think so...why? because their understanding is limited to their age

it doesn't matter what you tell them,they will believe it

if you'd tell them that a huge pink winged elephant created us they would believe it also,their faith isn't based on their descision but on their age,i know it's difficult for relgious parents not to share such great wisdom and knowlegde which they feel they have with their children,but it's much more usefull for their children if they make that descision by theirselves...

and jesus said 'let the children come to me'...well let them come by theirselves if they want,you don't have to bring them...]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 02, 2005.


Now, which type of forum do you think this is?

I know that too , but in that case , you have to refuse ALL NON- catholics !! I only answer questions in which where not only a catholic answer is asked (agreement from the past) !! This thread is one of those !!

14h10 CET

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), March 02, 2005.


and jesus said 'let the children come to me'...well let them come by theirselves if they want,you don't have to bring them...]-sdqa

And how exactly do they know to "come to Jesus" unless you, the parent, leads the child to Him? It is still their choice to accept Him or not, but you still must at least present the option. And this is often done at a young age, when the mind is still open and un-hardened by this world.

-- Mike (n@n.n), March 02, 2005.


Jesus is hardly sex, reproduction, nuclear physics and psychology. Your analogy about what to teach a child is severely flawed, if not just downright like DUH. Teaching a child to love God is not corrupting them. It is something they can reject later. Teaching a small child about nuclear physics is just dumb, they simply will not comprehend it. Teaching a child about reproduction is corrupting, giving them thoughts about what sex is before they should rightly know.

Cmon, sdqa, you should know better. Is it harmful to tell a kid about God? I had a freaked out vision of the devil as a kid, not because my family taught me about the devil, but because of worldly influence. When I prayed in my little heart for God to save me, I was released from the vision. All i asked was that God help me, and He did.

When my children are upset, they can go to God with their problems. Here's an example. My son was pissing off my daughter soooo bad and eventually she was raving mad. She hit him. I told him that he needed to talk to God about the attitude he was harboring in his heart and to ask God to change it. And when he was done, he needed to go to his sister and help to fix her heart because he broke it. You know what? They still fight but they have the coolest relationship I've ever seen between 2 siblings that are a year apart.

If later they choose to reject God, they cannot deny what God has done for them when they were younger. They can look back on their memories of each other fondly, due to the fact that when they were kids, they believed in God. Whether or not they think that it was all a trick to make them get along, they can't fault me for teaching what I taught them because these teachings keep our family together.

It like Jim the agnostic. He looks back fondly at his childhood.

Yes it's a shame when Christian parents force things down kids throats, but only because you shouldn't have to force things.

And what should I teach my kids? Get along with each other because I said so? It won't work for very long. Get along with each other because it's the right thing to do? Well, without a set of moral standards from God, what's right and what's wrong will change, maybe they'll think that getting along with each other isn't right anymore. Get along with each other because it's against the law if you fight? Because gramma said so? What excuse can you give to kids for behaving?

In our house, the ultimate authority is God. And when my kids see their parents obeying this authority, they fall in line too. If all they see is my husband obeying his boss and me obeying my mom, my children will become mindless drones only following worldy leaders. But if they see that there is a higher power in control, there is a supernatural change in them, a change for the better. I don't HAVE to say "behave or you're going to hell," I say, would God want us to behave like this? He created us, we have to appreciate that by being nice to each other. You can't hit someone because that person's body belongs to God. My, what a difference those words make!!!

But fear of hell is not necessarily a bad thing either. I have taught my children that hell is a place of separation from God and it's a very lonely existence. So when my son was being sneaky and lying about something, I asked him where liars go and he's like, hell I know. But later I reinforced that when you believe in Jesus, he can change your heart so you don't feel like it's necessary to lie. And if he does lie, he can ask for forgiveness and Jesus would gladly forgive him.

Do you think that is evil? It would be evil if the only way I taught my kids about God was "You're going to hell!"

Well, what is spanking and time out and grounding? It's teaching kids that there is a negative consequence to their actions. That's what hell is. And spanking alone doesn't keep your kid from doing wrong, sometimes they have to fix the problem they created. You draw on the wall, you clean it up, that's like doing penance. And sometimes there is just mercy... tell me the truth, you won't get in trouble, i just need to know the truth.

That is how God is. And you are an example of God to your children. So I give them all the aspects of God. Heaven hell forgiveness grace mercy morals... all so that can be the best that they can be.



-- Rina (emailmarina@yahoo.com), March 04, 2005.


Just my 2 cents..I find it terribly frustrating when non-Catholics chime in to answer a post and don't indentify themselves as such. It IS counterproductive, and it is not very helpful to the person who is asking about the CATHOLIC viewpoint on a Catholic forum..

There are a few people who always preface their responses by saying "I'm NOT a Catholic..." yet to have people who are admitted atheists posting advice on the forum seems to me to be a tad over the top. For the life of me I cannot understand why you guys are even here at all..are there no forums for atheists???

The last sentence on this thread is "what are your thoughts on this?" Since the person posted on a Catholic forum, one MIGHT reasonably hazard a guess that he was looking for Catholic opinions. So often, the posts rapidly deteriorate into off topic arguments because somebody has some NEED to bash the Catholic teaching concerning "whatever"..

Can't we take a vacation from this foolishness? Doesn't SOMEBODY have a delete button?????

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 04, 2005.


You are so right, Lesley. In fact, as a longtime observer of this forum's goings-on, I strongly favor the adoption of new rules that would state the following:

- 1 - Non-Catholics are permitted to start new threads in which they identify themselves as such, and they are permitted to reply on those same threads. Only on threads that they start are they permitted to express an opinion that contradicts a Catholic belief or criticizes a Catholic practice.

- 2 - On threads started by Catholics, non-Catholics are not permitted to reply without identifying themselves as such. On these threads, non-Catholics are not permitted to write against a Catholic belief or practice.

If a non-Catholic violates one of these rules, his/her post or thread should be deleted. Repeated intentional violations should result in the non-Catholic being ineligible to post here any more.

The failure of the forum to have instituted and strictly enforced rules like this has resulted in the forum not truly being able to call itself "Catholic." It has become too much of a permissive mishmash, a "Religion" forum, instead of a Catholic one.

-- (Sorry@Can't.GiveIt), March 05, 2005.


Somehow it would be nice to see again the little monogram, jmj --at the tops of your posts,

But you insist on thes ludicrous aliases, out of false pride. Yet except for your intolerant ideals, there's hardly anything you ever say which isn't true. May god be with you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.


But you insist on thes ludicrous aliases,

I "insist" on nothing. But you "insist" on trying to control people and make them act in a certain way that would please you more. By now, you should have learned that I will not be a puppet on a string.

out of false pride.

Let go. You neither know nor understand my motivations. Why guess wrongly at them and insult me in the process? It does you no credit.

Yet except for your intolerant ideals, If my "ideals" are "intolerant," you are applying that same insult to Jesus and His Church, since I merely relate their "ideals" in what I write.

there's hardly anything you ever say which isn't true.

Everything I say is "true/truthful" (as opposed to intentionally false), but sometimes I make mistakes by accident.

May God be with you.

Et cum spiritu tuo.

-- (Sorry@Can't.GiveIt), March 05, 2005.


Dear Friend:
I really want you, (you know who) to be at home and happy with us in this forum. That isn't ''control.'' Its compassion.

I said false pride, correct me if I'm wrong; because in the past we saw you FAIL to control the forum. You now feel you must remain in exile-- because you threatened to stay out, except for certain loving tributes to the saints. You sign your real name there, doing that. Here you try to disguise yourself, to save face.

But we (I --) don't hold anything against you. Forget about saving face and resume posting under your own name. You've nothing to be ashamed of. As I've said; you are a very worthy contributor who has nothing to apologise for. You have no need for an alias.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.


Sir, it boggles the mind how little you remember, how little you understand, and how ironically you act to prevent the very accomplishment of what you say is your goal ("to get me to be happy and at home in this forum").

Last time, you wrongly stated that I am acting "out of false pride."
I reprimanded you by saying, "You neither know nor understand my motivations. Why guess wrongly at them and insult me in the process? It does you no credit."
I should have added a fact that would have been obvious to you if you had been thinking logically: If someone posts with a full name, THAT could be "prideful" (a way to become well-known, accumulate praise, etc.). By contrast, if someone posts anonymously, especially with a multitude of aliases, the potential for pride disappears; the real person fades away and never gets a "fan club," and this is very good, because what really matters here is the content of the message, not the name of the messenger.

As I said, last time, I reprimanded you for speaking of my alleged "false pride." I wrote, "You neither know nor understand my motivations. Why guess wrongly at them and insult me in the process? It does you no credit." But instead of taking this to heart, you invented a new accusation, this time claiming that I am acting "to save face."
Again you are wrong about my motivations. (And dumb to boot, since an anonymous person can hardly "save face.") Have you now at last learned, sir, or will you come up with "strike three," another wrong guess? I told you not to "guess wrongly and insult me." In response, you guessed wrongly and insulted me again. And yet you say that THIS is how you want to try to "get me to be happy and at home." Sir, I expectorate on this wonderful form of hospitality!

Besides being wrong about what moves me to act and what my goals are today, you wrongly speak of the past. Perhaps being hurt about being reminded that you incessantly try to "control" me and others here, you exercised the defense mechanism known as "projection," in which you tried to accuse me of your own fault. You just now said, "... in the past we saw you FAIL to control the forum." Your erroneous words reveal your inability to remember two key historical facts:
- 1 - It was not I, but the various moderators, who have always "fail[ed] to control the forum," because they chose not to ban evildoers or to keep them banned. This bad trend continues today.
- 2 - The key factor in people like me leaving was not an inability to "control" the forum, but rather our being victimized by a seriously disturbed individual who was deleting our messages. That person now seems to have disappeared (Deo gratias).

In closing, sir ...
I hope that this message has (a) convinced you to stop guessing about my motivations, (b) reminded you of how the forum has never been properly "policed" [due to insufficient banning], and (c) refreshed your memory about how I and others were driven away a year ago. Do not bother to reply, because I will not be returning to this thread. I am not a masochist, and I will not tolerate any further injury.

-- (Sorry@Can't.GiveIt), March 06, 2005.


That was sure a lengthy post. I'm a little amused at ''. . . claiming that I am acting to save face. Again you are wrong about my motivations. (And dumb to boot, since an anonymous person can hardly "save face.")

It's because I see how coming back under the name of JFG you'd lose face; that I made the ''dumb'' claim. You'd have returned-- after saying,

''That's IT-- You have got me mad; now you'll pay for it! I ain't coming back here NO MORE, except to give you the indispensable Calendar of the Saints!!! You asked for it!''

But, posting ANYWAY, under a variety of phony names. It fools nobody. And now you're too proud even to see the love I express. You ''expectorate'' on it! Could be worse, I suppose. You might've defecated on it. Sheeeshhh! Just remember: I haven't expectorated on any of your good contributions. I wanted you to be happy again.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ