Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.

It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

Joe,

Your doctor analogy isn't apt. In that context, a kid could choose to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, and there is no "right" answer. It's a decision like in choosing a religion, but no career choice is right to the exclusion of all others, and you don't have to hinge your life in an underlying factual premise that cannot be confirmed. Religion is different. You pick one, and to believe in one, you have to believe it's right, and therefore by definition all the others are wrong.

And to the influence question, when you're in high school and college, you are taught you can be ANYTHING. It's a menu and all of those options are open to anyone. Most religious households don't operate that way. I don't expect that in a Christian household parents would tell their kids to be Buddhist if they want (and give them the opportunity to learn it), or Jewish, or other. The reaction frequently would be more like another poster in this thread indicated-disappointment that the kids let the faith. The pressures and situation are so entirely different from a family who would love to see their kid be a doctor.

So I don't think that analogy applies. I suspect you and others would like to think you had that kind of unfettered free choice in choosing your religion, but it's awful uncanny that you (and most) happened to choose the same religion, of all the options out there, that your parents raised you in.

The other issue here is that choosing to pass on becoming a doctor doesn't mean you are denying the life philosophy of your parents and saying their beliefs were false.

My sister is very religious. So is her husband. My nephew was just baptized. My sister stated how proud she was of him because he made the decision to get baptized all on his own. I found this a bit odd since this really wasn't true. He is 7. He is too young to make such a monumental choice about his life on his own. From day 1 he was told 10% of his allowance and any money he received was to be donated. He has been taken to church almost every single sunday his whole life. He was told during sunday school all these things were true. His parents have reinforced these things his whole life. They have volunteered repeatedly, been a huge part of their church council, and have recruited other members to join their church. Every xmas and easter they spend hours discussing jesus and god, right before they get lots and lots of presents.

If he decided to not get baptized they would have been crushed. He would have essentially been turning his back on what is a HUGE part of their life and believing they are basically wrong.

How many 7 year olds make that choice? Now imagine how much harder it would be for his little brother to make the decision to NOT get baptized, since his big brother that he has always wanted to be like made the "choice".

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.

It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

Joe,

Your doctor analogy isn't apt. In that context, a kid could choose to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, and there is no "right" answer. It's a decision like in choosing a religion, but no career choice is right to the exclusion of all others, and you don't have to hinge your life in an underlying factual premise that cannot be confirmed. Religion is different. You pick one, and to believe in one, you have to believe it's right, and therefore by definition all the others are wrong.

And to the influence question, when you're in high school and college, you are taught you can be ANYTHING. It's a menu and all of those options are open to anyone. Most religious households don't operate that way. I don't expect that in a Christian household parents would tell their kids to be Buddhist if they want (and give them the opportunity to learn it), or Jewish, or other. The reaction frequently would be more like another poster in this thread indicated-disappointment that the kids let the faith. The pressures and situation are so entirely different from a family who would love to see their kid be a doctor.

So I don't think that analogy applies. I suspect you and others would like to think you had that kind of unfettered free choice in choosing your religion, but it's awful uncanny that you (and most) happened to choose the same religion, of all the options out there, that your parents raised you in.

The other issue here is that choosing to pass on becoming a doctor doesn't mean you are denying the life philosophy of your parents and saying their beliefs were false.

Thanks, P. Clearly, the doctor example isn't perfect. But in that example I'm not talking about it from the perspective of the person with non doctor parents. I'm talking about it from the neutral person who is deciding whether they want to align themselves with becoming a doctor or not. In that case, I'm saying I wouldn't really care if people become doctors because their parents wanted them to. I'd look just at what me becoming a doctor would mean.

From the perspective of continuing on a tradition whether it's being a doctor or a Christian, there is certainly a "don't disappoint the parents" angle in play. But I think most of us as adults pretty well are who we are. Or in the case of religion where it's often not obvious where we stand, we just sort of "get along". In other words, I tend to think many people would not classify themselves as strong believers or followers of a religion just to please their parents. They might say that and smile at Christmas church service. But they wouldn't really be that unless they were just deluding themselves. Which I guess could be happening but I'd hope not.

J

 

[shader]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.

It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

Joe,

Your doctor analogy isn't apt. In that context, a kid could choose to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, and there is no "right" answer. It's a decision like in choosing a religion, but no career choice is right to the exclusion of all others, and you don't have to hinge your life in an underlying factual premise that cannot be confirmed. Religion is different. You pick one, and to believe in one, you have to believe it's right, and therefore by definition all the others are wrong.

And to the influence question, when you're in high school and college, you are taught you can be ANYTHING. It's a menu and all of those options are open to anyone. Most religious households don't operate that way. I don't expect that in a Christian household parents would tell their kids to be Buddhist if they want (and give them the opportunity to learn it), or Jewish, or other. The reaction frequently would be more like another poster in this thread indicated-disappointment that the kids let the faith. The pressures and situation are so entirely different from a family who would love to see their kid be a doctor.

So I don't think that analogy applies. I suspect you and others would like to think you had that kind of unfettered free choice in choosing your religion, but it's awful uncanny that you (and most) happened to choose the same religion, of all the options out there, that your parents raised you in.

The other issue here is that choosing to pass on becoming a doctor doesn't mean you are denying the life philosophy of your parents and saying their beliefs were false.

My sister is very religious. So is her husband. My nephew was just baptized. My sister stated how proud she was of him because he made the decision to get baptized all on his own. I found this a bit odd since this really wasn't true. He is 7. He is too young to make such a monumental choice about his life on his own. From day 1 he was told 10% of his allowance and any money he received was to be donated. He has been taken to church almost every single sunday his whole life. He was told during sunday school all these things were true. His parents have reinforced these things his whole life. They have volunteered repeatedly, been a huge part of their church council, and have recruited other members to join their church. Every xmas and easter they spend hours discussing jesus and god, right before they get lots and lots of presents.

If he decided to not get baptized they would have been crushed. He would have essentially been turning his back on what is a HUGE part of their life and believing they are basically wrong.

How many 7 year olds make that choice? Now imagine how much harder it would be for his little brother to make the decision to NOT get baptized, since his big brother that he has always wanted to be like made the "choice".

Sure, a 7 year old is going to make a choice to appease the parents. That's natural. But as every child grows up and becomes an adult, they go back and analyze their beliefs. They end up making their own choices. The culture of society is a big driver of that as well. In the US, there is a melting pot of religions and religious beliefs. As such, people here are more likely to make their own choices than they are in a society where the vast majority of people are a certain religion.

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

 

[theglorydays]

Our understanding of God changes person by person and moment by moment, in addition to any developing systematic theology.

Your understanding is based on the Bible correct? How far along in the development of this systematic theology would you say we are ~2000 years into it?

Is Christianity one religion or is it a subjective one (changing person to person)?

Christians are a diverse group that have a few beliefs that unite them. These can, for the most part, be found in creeds. It is important to define what Christians are united on, so this is actually a good question too.

The Nicene Creed is a good place to start for those who are curious. This is what unites Christians. These are the things that make you a Christian vs a different, non-Christian religion. You'll notice as you read through there that there are a ton of topics that aren't there. It doesn't speak to evolution, homosexuality, capital punishment, gender roles, the government's role in society, or any of the things that can and are hot button issues in the church today. Those are the things that we can (and do) disagree on. Ideally it will be more like brotherly disagreement, unfortunately it doesn't always play out that way.

Theology is not a finished study. Much like people still study philosophy, math, and science, we continue to study theology and we continue to learn from it. I'm not sure why we would expect theology as a discipline to be finished on a timeline we don't expect any other disciplines to be subject to. You wouldn't say "why haven't we figured out math, we've been studying it for thousands of years" or point to a disagreement on P versus NP as proof that math is somehow flawed simply because we don't know the answer (or if it can even be answered.)

Theology is hard. There is a lot going on. I am in some ways thankful for this because it gives a rich history of great minds that I can read and study from. But man, sometimes it would be nice if it were easy.

At the end of the day the question is are Christians going to pander to fallen man and a Godless cultures interpretation of the world or believe what the word of God teaches? Are we willing to be fools for Christ? The message of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing (1 cor), but it is the power of God to us who are being saved.

I disagree with a lot of what you said are negotiables. The Bible is Gods word and transcends culture and the opinions of fallen man. Just 35 years ago psychologists were defining homosexuality as a mental disorder now these same people are saying people are born this way. The bible is absolutely clear on this issue, it is an abomination in Gods eyes, evidence by the destruction of sodom and Gomorrah. (Where we get the word sodomite) 21 century man will call that hate speech and Jesus warned us of days when men will call good evil and evil good.

Man and his opinions change, but the word of God is a sure foundation that doesn't change. How dare we question Gods word!

As far as evolution goes, theistic evolution is absolutely unbiblical. Genesis makes it clear God is the creator and the creatures He created were created each "after it's own kind". No cross species evolution there. No deity directing an evolutionary process! Pretty unambiguous language. From the very beginning satan has questioned Gods word and mankind in his fallen state continues to do the same.

The only way you can get that interpretation is by bringing in your own presuppositions and loaded the text and interpreting it the way you want to (theologians call this eisigesis). We let scripture interpret scripture and submit to what God has said in His word.

This isn't popular language, but again, the Gospel never has been! The martyrs throughout the centuries testify to this and the amount of Christians being killed worldwide continues to confirm Jesus's words "everyone will hate you for my names sake"!

 

[Otis]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.

It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

Joe,

Your doctor analogy isn't apt. In that context, a kid could choose to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, and there is no "right" answer. It's a decision like in choosing a religion, but no career choice is right to the exclusion of all others, and you don't have to hinge your life in an underlying factual premise that cannot be confirmed. Religion is different. You pick one, and to believe in one, you have to believe it's right, and therefore by definition all the others are wrong.

And to the influence question, when you're in high school and college, you are taught you can be ANYTHING. It's a menu and all of those options are open to anyone. Most religious households don't operate that way. I don't expect that in a Christian household parents would tell their kids to be Buddhist if they want (and give them the opportunity to learn it), or Jewish, or other. The reaction frequently would be more like another poster in this thread indicated-disappointment that the kids let the faith. The pressures and situation are so entirely different from a family who would love to see their kid be a doctor.

So I don't think that analogy applies. I suspect you and others would like to think you had that kind of unfettered free choice in choosing your religion, but it's awful uncanny that you (and most) happened to choose the same religion, of all the options out there, that your parents raised you in.

The other issue here is that choosing to pass on becoming a doctor doesn't mean you are denying the life philosophy of your parents and saying their beliefs were false.

My sister is very religious. So is her husband. My nephew was just baptized. My sister stated how proud she was of him because he made the decision to get baptized all on his own. I found this a bit odd since this really wasn't true. He is 7. He is too young to make such a monumental choice about his life on his own. From day 1 he was told 10% of his allowance and any money he received was to be donated. He has been taken to church almost every single sunday his whole life. He was told during sunday school all these things were true. His parents have reinforced these things his whole life. They have volunteered repeatedly, been a huge part of their church council, and have recruited other members to join their church. Every xmas and easter they spend hours discussing jesus and god, right before they get lots and lots of presents.

If he decided to not get baptized they would have been crushed. He would have essentially been turning his back on what is a HUGE part of their life and believing they are basically wrong.

How many 7 year olds make that choice? Now imagine how much harder it would be for his little brother to make the decision to NOT get baptized, since his big brother that he has always wanted to be like made the "choice".

Yeah, at age 7, that's absurd. These people sound nutty.

 

[proninja]

And what of those that don't believe the Nicene Creed?

Traditionally, Abrahamic religions that believe something entirely different from the core beliefs of Christianity have called themselves something different. Islam, for example, denies the divinity of Jesus despite their belief that he was a great prophet. Consequently, they also deny the trinitarian nature of God that in part defines Christianity. So, since they believe something entirely different, we call them something different. That makes a lot of sense to me. If I rejected the core teachings of a certain religion, I would certainly not want to call myself by their name.

I hope that answers your question respectfully. I don't mean to upset you or be rude, and I'd prefer not to derail this thread with this particular sidebar, though I did want to give you the respect of answering your question as best I was able.

 

[proninja]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.

It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

Joe,

Your doctor analogy isn't apt. In that context, a kid could choose to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, and there is no "right" answer. It's a decision like in choosing a religion, but no career choice is right to the exclusion of all others, and you don't have to hinge your life in an underlying factual premise that cannot be confirmed. Religion is different. You pick one, and to believe in one, you have to believe it's right, and therefore by definition all the others are wrong.

And to the influence question, when you're in high school and college, you are taught you can be ANYTHING. It's a menu and all of those options are open to anyone. Most religious households don't operate that way. I don't expect that in a Christian household parents would tell their kids to be Buddhist if they want (and give them the opportunity to learn it), or Jewish, or other. The reaction frequently would be more like another poster in this thread indicated-disappointment that the kids let the faith. The pressures and situation are so entirely different from a family who would love to see their kid be a doctor.

So I don't think that analogy applies. I suspect you and others would like to think you had that kind of unfettered free choice in choosing your religion, but it's awful uncanny that you (and most) happened to choose the same religion, of all the options out there, that your parents raised you in.

The other issue here is that choosing to pass on becoming a doctor doesn't mean you are denying the life philosophy of your parents and saying their beliefs were false.

My sister is very religious. So is her husband. My nephew was just baptized. My sister stated how proud she was of him because he made the decision to get baptized all on his own. I found this a bit odd since this really wasn't true. He is 7. He is too young to make such a monumental choice about his life on his own. From day 1 he was told 10% of his allowance and any money he received was to be donated. He has been taken to church almost every single sunday his whole life. He was told during sunday school all these things were true. His parents have reinforced these things his whole life. They have volunteered repeatedly, been a huge part of their church council, and have recruited other members to join their church. Every xmas and easter they spend hours discussing jesus and god, right before they get lots and lots of presents.

If he decided to not get baptized they would have been crushed. He would have essentially been turning his back on what is a HUGE part of their life and believing they are basically wrong.

How many 7 year olds make that choice? Now imagine how much harder it would be for his little brother to make the decision to NOT get baptized, since his big brother that he has always wanted to be like made the "choice".

Sure, a 7 year old is going to make a choice to appease the parents. That's natural. But as every child grows up and becomes an adult, they go back and analyze their beliefs. They end up making their own choices. The culture of society is a big driver of that as well. In the US, there is a melting pot of religions and religious beliefs. As such, people here are more likely to make their own choices than they are in a society where the vast majority of people are a certain religion.

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

That's really interesting. Thanks.

 

[Otis]

And what of those that don't believe the Nicene Creed?

Traditionally, Abrahamic religions that believe something entirely different from the core beliefs of Christianity have called themselves something different. Islam, for example, denies the divinity of Jesus despite their belief that he was a great prophet. Consequently, they also deny the trinitarian nature of God that in part defines Christianity. So, since they believe something entirely different, we call them something different. That makes a lot of sense to me. If I rejected the core teachings of a certain religion, I would certainly not want to call myself by their name.

I hope that answers your question respectfully. I don't mean to upset you or be rude, and I'd prefer not to derail this thread with this particular sidebar, though I did want to give you the respect of answering your question as best I was able.

How do you know you're right and the Muslims aren't?

 

[Otis]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.

It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

Joe,

Your doctor analogy isn't apt. In that context, a kid could choose to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, and there is no "right" answer. It's a decision like in choosing a religion, but no career choice is right to the exclusion of all others, and you don't have to hinge your life in an underlying factual premise that cannot be confirmed. Religion is different. You pick one, and to believe in one, you have to believe it's right, and therefore by definition all the others are wrong.

And to the influence question, when you're in high school and college, you are taught you can be ANYTHING. It's a menu and all of those options are open to anyone. Most religious households don't operate that way. I don't expect that in a Christian household parents would tell their kids to be Buddhist if they want (and give them the opportunity to learn it), or Jewish, or other. The reaction frequently would be more like another poster in this thread indicated-disappointment that the kids let the faith. The pressures and situation are so entirely different from a family who would love to see their kid be a doctor.

So I don't think that analogy applies. I suspect you and others would like to think you had that kind of unfettered free choice in choosing your religion, but it's awful uncanny that you (and most) happened to choose the same religion, of all the options out there, that your parents raised you in.

The other issue here is that choosing to pass on becoming a doctor doesn't mean you are denying the life philosophy of your parents and saying their beliefs were false.

My sister is very religious. So is her husband. My nephew was just baptized. My sister stated how proud she was of him because he made the decision to get baptized all on his own. I found this a bit odd since this really wasn't true. He is 7. He is too young to make such a monumental choice about his life on his own. From day 1 he was told 10% of his allowance and any money he received was to be donated. He has been taken to church almost every single sunday his whole life. He was told during sunday school all these things were true. His parents have reinforced these things his whole life. They have volunteered repeatedly, been a huge part of their church council, and have recruited other members to join their church. Every xmas and easter they spend hours discussing jesus and god, right before they get lots and lots of presents.

If he decided to not get baptized they would have been crushed. He would have essentially been turning his back on what is a HUGE part of their life and believing they are basically wrong.

How many 7 year olds make that choice? Now imagine how much harder it would be for his little brother to make the decision to NOT get baptized, since his big brother that he has always wanted to be like made the "choice".

Sure, a 7 year old is going to make a choice to appease the parents. That's natural. But as every child grows up and becomes an adult, they go back and analyze their beliefs. They end up making their own choices. The culture of society is a big driver of that as well. In the US, there is a melting pot of religions and religious beliefs. As such, people here are more likely to make their own choices than they are in a society where the vast majority of people are a certain religion.

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

That's really interesting. Thanks.

Lots of interesting data at that link. Good find.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

My suspicion is that Otis is clinging to the parents thing because it's the explanation that makes the most sense to him. Every athiest and agnostic knows and respects lots of folks that are both religious and very smart. But it's difficult for us to understand how someone that is so brilliant could believe in things that we regard as fairy tales and superstitions. One explanation that seems at least plausible is that, when a person is raised in a religious environment, these beliefs are considered so natural and commonplace that they don't seem absurd when that person reaches adulthood. But smart people that choose a religion as an adult are tougher for us to understand.

 

[shader]

And what of those that don't believe the Nicene Creed?

Traditionally, Abrahamic religions that believe something entirely different from the core beliefs of Christianity have called themselves something different. Islam, for example, denies the divinity of Jesus despite their belief that he was a great prophet. Consequently, they also deny the trinitarian nature of God that in part defines Christianity. So, since they believe something entirely different, we call them something different. That makes a lot of sense to me. If I rejected the core teachings of a certain religion, I would certainly not want to call myself by their name.

I hope that answers your question respectfully. I don't mean to upset you or be rude, and I'd prefer not to derail this thread with this particular sidebar, though I did want to give you the respect of answering your question as best I was able.

I appreciate the respectful answer. On a personal level, your post, ironically, is one that gives me faith in my personal religion, as the thread asks. So from that perspective, it ties into the OP. Though debating the trinity is quite obviously a sidebar that would not be good for this thread.

 

[Galileo]

Our understanding of God changes person by person and moment by moment, in addition to any developing systematic theology.

Your understanding is based on the Bible correct? How far along in the development of this systematic theology would you say we are ~2000 years into it?

Is Christianity one religion or is it a subjective one (changing person to person)?

Christians are a diverse group that have a few beliefs that unite them. These can, for the most part, be found in creeds. It is important to define what Christians are united on, so this is actually a good question too.

The Nicene Creed is a good place to start for those who are curious. This is what unites Christians. These are the things that make you a Christian vs a different, non-Christian religion. You'll notice as you read through there that there are a ton of topics that aren't there. It doesn't speak to evolution, homosexuality, capital punishment, gender roles, the government's role in society, or any of the things that can and are hot button issues in the church today. Those are the things that we can (and do) disagree on. Ideally it will be more like brotherly disagreement, unfortunately it doesn't always play out that way.

Theology is not a finished study. Much like people still study philosophy, math, and science, we continue to study theology and we continue to learn from it. I'm not sure why we would expect theology as a discipline to be finished on a timeline we don't expect any other disciplines to be subject to. You wouldn't say "why haven't we figured out math, we've been studying it for thousands of years" or point to a disagreement on P versus NP as proof that math is somehow flawed simply because we don't know the answer (or if it can even be answered.)

Theology is hard. There is a lot going on. I am in some ways thankful for this because it gives a rich history of great minds that I can read and study from. But man, sometimes it would be nice if it were easy.

At the end of the day the question is are Christians going to pander to fallen man and a Godless cultures interpretation of the world or believe what the word of God teaches? Are we willing to be fools for Christ? The message of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing (1 cor), but it is the power of God to us who are being saved.

I disagree with a lot of what you said are negotiables. The Bible is Gods word and transcends culture and the opinions of fallen man. Just 35 years ago psychologists were defining homosexuality as a mental disorder now these same people are saying people are born this way. The bible is absolutely clear on this issue, it is an abomination in Gods eyes, evidence by the destruction of sodom and Gomorrah. (Where we get the word sodomite) 21 century man will call that hate speech and Jesus warned us of days when men will call good evil and evil good.

Man and his opinions change, but the word of God is a sure foundation that doesn't change. How dare we question Gods word!

As far as evolution goes, theistic evolution is absolutely unbiblical. Genesis makes it clear God is the creator and the creatures He created were created each "after it's own kind". No cross species evolution there. No deity directing an evolutionary process! Pretty unambiguous language. From the very beginning satan has questioned Gods word and mankind in his fallen state continues to do the same.

The only way you can get that interpretation is by bringing in your own presuppositions and loaded the text and interpreting it the way you want to (theologians call this eisigesis). We let scripture interpret scripture and submit to what God has said in His word.

This isn't popular language, but again, the Gospel never has been! The martyrs throughout the centuries testify to this and the amount of Christians being killed worldwide continues to confirm Jesus's words "everyone will hate you for my names sake"!

I ask you the same question I posed to proninja a page or so ago... Why do you believe the "Bible is God's word"?

 

[Steve Tasker]

Just 35 years ago psychologists were defining homosexuality as a mental disorder now these same people are saying people are born this way. The bible is absolutely clear on this issue, it is an abomination in Gods eyes, evidence by the destruction of sodom and Gomorrah. (Where we get the word sodomite) 21 century man will call that hate speech and Jesus warned us of days when men will call good evil and evil good.Man and his opinions change, but the word of God is a sure foundation that doesn't change. How dare we question Gods word!

As far as evolution goes, theistic evolution is absolutely unbiblical. Genesis makes it clear God is the creator and the creatures He created were created each "after it's own kind". No cross species evolution there. No deity directing an evolutionary process! Pretty unambiguous language. From the very beginning satan has questioned Gods word and mankind in his fallen state continues to do the same.

Commentary such as this is actually a good example of why I am NOT a Christian.

 

[Otis]

My suspicion is that Otis is clinging to the parents thing because it's the explanation that makes the most sense to him. Every athiest and agnostic knows and respects lots of folks that are both religious and very smart. But it's difficult for us to understand how someone that is so brilliant could believe in things that we regard as fairy tales and superstitions. One explanation that seems at least plausible is that, when a person is raised in a religious environment, these beliefs are considered so natural and commonplace that they don't seem absurd when that person reaches adulthood. But smart people that choose a religion as an adult are tougher for us to understand.

I don't disagree with any of this. Ultimately, I think I conclude that the influence of upbringing on religious beliefs is way more powerful than people who are religious would rather think.

 

[mr roboto]

My suspicion is that Otis is clinging to the parents thing because it's the explanation that makes the most sense to him. Every athiest and agnostic knows and respects lots of folks that are both religious and very smart. But it's difficult for us to understand how someone that is so brilliant could believe in things that we regard as fairy tales and superstitions. One explanation that seems at least plausible is that, when a person is raised in a religious environment, these beliefs are considered so natural and commonplace that they don't seem absurd when that person reaches adulthood. But smart people that choose a religion as an adult are tougher for us to understand.

I don't disagree with any of this. Ultimately, I think I conclude that the influence of upbringing on religious beliefs is way more powerful than people who are religious would rather think.

I'm sorry, but why are you the authority on other people's motivations? That's pretty arrogant honestly.

 

[Otis]

I challenge you to find a religion thread that went 8 pages deep here and stayed as respectful and even-keeled as this one.

 

[Otis]

My suspicion is that Otis is clinging to the parents thing because it's the explanation that makes the most sense to him. Every athiest and agnostic knows and respects lots of folks that are both religious and very smart. But it's difficult for us to understand how someone that is so brilliant could believe in things that we regard as fairy tales and superstitions. One explanation that seems at least plausible is that, when a person is raised in a religious environment, these beliefs are considered so natural and commonplace that they don't seem absurd when that person reaches adulthood. But smart people that choose a religion as an adult are tougher for us to understand.

I don't disagree with any of this. Ultimately, I think I conclude that the influence of upbringing on religious beliefs is way more powerful than people who are religious would rather think.

I'm sorry, but why are you the authority on other people's motivations? That's pretty arrogant honestly.

I'm not an authority. I'm just sharing my conclusion. I'd like to see more data on it, but I suspect the data will bear it out. Joe posted an interesting counterpoint, the rise of certain religions in China, but I still believe that's likely the exception to the rule.

Do you have data that says otherwise?

 

[proninja]

I ask you the same question I posed to proninja a page or so ago... Why do you believe the "Bible is God's word"?

How do you know you're right and the Muslims aren't?

Entirely unsatisfying answer

I wish I had a better one

 

[parasaurolophus]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.

It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

Joe,

Your doctor analogy isn't apt. In that context, a kid could choose to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, and there is no "right" answer. It's a decision like in choosing a religion, but no career choice is right to the exclusion of all others, and you don't have to hinge your life in an underlying factual premise that cannot be confirmed. Religion is different. You pick one, and to believe in one, you have to believe it's right, and therefore by definition all the others are wrong.

And to the influence question, when you're in high school and college, you are taught you can be ANYTHING. It's a menu and all of those options are open to anyone. Most religious households don't operate that way. I don't expect that in a Christian household parents would tell their kids to be Buddhist if they want (and give them the opportunity to learn it), or Jewish, or other. The reaction frequently would be more like another poster in this thread indicated-disappointment that the kids let the faith. The pressures and situation are so entirely different from a family who would love to see their kid be a doctor.

So I don't think that analogy applies. I suspect you and others would like to think you had that kind of unfettered free choice in choosing your religion, but it's awful uncanny that you (and most) happened to choose the same religion, of all the options out there, that your parents raised you in.

The other issue here is that choosing to pass on becoming a doctor doesn't mean you are denying the life philosophy of your parents and saying their beliefs were false.

My sister is very religious. So is her husband. My nephew was just baptized. My sister stated how proud she was of him because he made the decision to get baptized all on his own. I found this a bit odd since this really wasn't true. He is 7. He is too young to make such a monumental choice about his life on his own. From day 1 he was told 10% of his allowance and any money he received was to be donated. He has been taken to church almost every single sunday his whole life. He was told during sunday school all these things were true. His parents have reinforced these things his whole life. They have volunteered repeatedly, been a huge part of their church council, and have recruited other members to join their church. Every xmas and easter they spend hours discussing jesus and god, right before they get lots and lots of presents.

If he decided to not get baptized they would have been crushed. He would have essentially been turning his back on what is a HUGE part of their life and believing they are basically wrong.

How many 7 year olds make that choice? Now imagine how much harder it would be for his little brother to make the decision to NOT get baptized, since his big brother that he has always wanted to be like made the "choice".

Sure, a 7 year old is going to make a choice to appease the parents. That's natural. But as every child grows up and becomes an adult, they go back and analyze their beliefs. They end up making their own choices. The culture of society is a big driver of that as well. In the US, there is a melting pot of religions and religious beliefs. As such, people here are more likely to make their own choices than they are in a society where the vast majority of people are a certain religion.

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

Here's the thing though, if you truly believe that people make a free and clear choice when they are adults, you kind of have to believe that there are no oustide influences in your life. That people completely shape themselves and their surroundings and their upbringing do not affect their behavior or their choices.

Religion is a pretty unique thing too. There arent too many choices in life people debate where on the one side is what friends and family believe and on the other side is what friends and family believe will lead to eternal damnation.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

My suspicion is that Otis is clinging to the parents thing because it's the explanation that makes the most sense to him. Every athiest and agnostic knows and respects lots of folks that are both religious and very smart. But it's difficult for us to understand how someone that is so brilliant could believe in things that we regard as fairy tales and superstitions. One explanation that seems at least plausible is that, when a person is raised in a religious environment, these beliefs are considered so natural and commonplace that they don't seem absurd when that person reaches adulthood. But smart people that choose a religion as an adult are tougher for us to understand.

I don't disagree with any of this. Ultimately, I think I conclude that the influence of upbringing on religious beliefs is way more powerful than people who are religious would rather think.

I'm sorry, but why are you the authority on other people's motivations? That's pretty arrogant honestly.

I'm not an authority. I'm just sharing my conclusion. I'd like to see more data on it, but I suspect the data will bear it out. Joe posted an interesting counterpoint, the rise of certain religions in China, but I still believe that's likely the exception to the rule.

Do you have data that says otherwise?

Then Google it and see what data you can find. No way is your 99% conclusion even close to being accurate.

 

[mr roboto]

My suspicion is that Otis is clinging to the parents thing because it's the explanation that makes the most sense to him. Every athiest and agnostic knows and respects lots of folks that are both religious and very smart. But it's difficult for us to understand how someone that is so brilliant could believe in things that we regard as fairy tales and superstitions. One explanation that seems at least plausible is that, when a person is raised in a religious environment, these beliefs are considered so natural and commonplace that they don't seem absurd when that person reaches adulthood. But smart people that choose a religion as an adult are tougher for us to understand.

I don't disagree with any of this. Ultimately, I think I conclude that the influence of upbringing on religious beliefs is way more powerful than people who are religious would rather think.

I'm sorry, but why are you the authority on other people's motivations? That's pretty arrogant honestly.

I'm not an authority. I'm just sharing my conclusion. I'd like to see more data on it, but I suspect the data will bear it out. Joe posted an interesting counterpoint, the rise of certain religions in China, but I still believe that's likely the exception to the rule.

Do you have data that says otherwise?

So far, you've been presented with about 50/50 Protestants who were raised Protestants and examples of wholesale religious adoption in nations in the spam of 20-50 years, yet you cling to this 'You religious people all are just following mommy and daddy' rationale. More often than not, yes, if someone grows up to be religious they will continue with their parent's faith. But not the 90%+ you've assumed. And your comment about 'more than religious people would like to admit' does sound arrogant. I believe you genuinely believe that a vast majority of religious people are faithful to their religion because their parents raised them that way. But it's simply not true to the extent you make it out to be.

 

[shader]

My suspicion is that Otis is clinging to the parents thing because it's the explanation that makes the most sense to him. Every athiest and agnostic knows and respects lots of folks that are both religious and very smart. But it's difficult for us to understand how someone that is so brilliant could believe in things that we regard as fairy tales and superstitions. One explanation that seems at least plausible is that, when a person is raised in a religious environment, these beliefs are considered so natural and commonplace that they don't seem absurd when that person reaches adulthood. But smart people that choose a religion as an adult are tougher for us to understand.

Smart people throughout the ages have believed in the bible. You shouldn't have to wonder why smart and brilliant people could believe in miracles (which I assume is the fairy tales/superstitions comment). As I've posted numerous times, if God could create the universe, of which the earth is a tiny speck, than healing sick people, parting a river or even flooding the earth are not difficult things at all.

I would say that man in general has the inborn need to worship a higher power. This is evident not only throughout history, but even today. Despite evolution and science advancing, atheism is under 2.5% in adults, according to a quick google search. So while atheists may wonder why brilliant people could believe in "fairy tales and superstitions", in reality they are wondering why 97% of the people on the planet believe in some sort of higher power. To most people it's obvious. Taking the leap from believing in a higher power to believing in that higher power performing some powerful acts in the past is really not that great of a leap.

 

[proninja]

Man and his opinions change, but the word of God is a sure foundation that doesn't change.

I'm not going to engage a lot of what you said, because we've had threads for that where I've given my opinion on those issues, and that's not what this thread is for. What I will say is that yes, man and his opinion changes. And the word of God, by necessity, has to be translated and interpreted by men. Since we are men, we should give careful heed to how other men translate and interpret the word of God. I wrote some of my thoughts on inerrancy here a little bit ago. I fully expect you to not enjoy any of it, but you'll know where I'm coming from.

 

[theglorydays]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

Can your God's position change in response to question and challenge?

No, this is His response But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?... (Romans 9:20 ESV)

About the 5th time we have seen the "he is too mysterious/complicated for you to understand" response.

But to follow.. it would appear you directly contradict your fellow Christian above. Imagine that...

One of Gods attributes is His immutability, He is incapable of changing. Your question was answered by the text in Romans 9. You don't lack evidence, as we've already discussed the problem is a moral one (psalm 14 and 55) Jesus said And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. (John 3:19, 20 ESV)

Romans 1 says the same thing, that God has given general revelation to all men, but that suppress the truth that they know in order to do what they want to do.

 

[Otis]

My suspicion is that Otis is clinging to the parents thing because it's the explanation that makes the most sense to him. Every athiest and agnostic knows and respects lots of folks that are both religious and very smart. But it's difficult for us to understand how someone that is so brilliant could believe in things that we regard as fairy tales and superstitions. One explanation that seems at least plausible is that, when a person is raised in a religious environment, these beliefs are considered so natural and commonplace that they don't seem absurd when that person reaches adulthood. But smart people that choose a religion as an adult are tougher for us to understand.

I don't disagree with any of this. Ultimately, I think I conclude that the influence of upbringing on religious beliefs is way more powerful than people who are religious would rather think.

I'm sorry, but why are you the authority on other people's motivations? That's pretty arrogant honestly.

I'm not an authority. I'm just sharing my conclusion. I'd like to see more data on it, but I suspect the data will bear it out. Joe posted an interesting counterpoint, the rise of certain religions in China, but I still believe that's likely the exception to the rule.

Do you have data that says otherwise?

Then Google it and see what data you can find. No way is your 99% conclusion even close to being accurate.

I did Google it, I didn't find an answer easily. What do you think the number is? 90%? 80%? Even so, aren't those pretty powerful?

 

[Joe Bryant]

clipped

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

Thanks Shader. I don't know much about the Pew Report but I have often heard their name in Religious polling. I think they're well respected.

Couple of questions I'd ask on this.

As with any statistics, one has to be careful to make sure "the rest of the story" is there. For instance, is there something in Hindu culture that makes leaving the religion way worse than it is in Buddhist culture? I don't know that.

And the bigger question I'd ask is what do these numbers tell us? Is it better to have an organization where the vast majority of the children grow into adults and then follow their parent's choice? Or does it speak better for an organization where the vast majority of the children grow into adults that reject their parent's choice?

Not to single you out Otis (while I single you out, GB ) what would you rather see? The list above has a wide range. Which end of the list is more attractive from the legacy angle?

J

 

[Otis]

My suspicion is that Otis is clinging to the parents thing because it's the explanation that makes the most sense to him. Every athiest and agnostic knows and respects lots of folks that are both religious and very smart. But it's difficult for us to understand how someone that is so brilliant could believe in things that we regard as fairy tales and superstitions. One explanation that seems at least plausible is that, when a person is raised in a religious environment, these beliefs are considered so natural and commonplace that they don't seem absurd when that person reaches adulthood. But smart people that choose a religion as an adult are tougher for us to understand.

I don't disagree with any of this. Ultimately, I think I conclude that the influence of upbringing on religious beliefs is way more powerful than people who are religious would rather think.

I'm sorry, but why are you the authority on other people's motivations? That's pretty arrogant honestly.

I'm not an authority. I'm just sharing my conclusion. I'd like to see more data on it, but I suspect the data will bear it out. Joe posted an interesting counterpoint, the rise of certain religions in China, but I still believe that's likely the exception to the rule.

Do you have data that says otherwise?

So far, you've been presented with about 50/50 Protestants who were raised Protestants and examples of wholesale religious adoption in nations in the spam of 20-50 years, yet you cling to this 'You religious people all are just following mommy and daddy' rationale. More often than not, yes, if someone grows up to be religious they will continue with their parent's faith. But not the 90%+ you've assumed. And your comment about 'more than religious people would like to admit' does sound arrogant.I believe you genuinely believe that a vast majority of religious people are faithful to their religion because their parents raised them that way. But it's simply not true to the extent you make it out to be.

To what extent is it true? That's the question I've been asking since the beginning of the thread. There aren't a whole lot of buddhist kids in the 90% roman catholic neighborhood I grew up in. Wouldn't you know it -- what a coincidence -- all the kids ended up deciding to choose the exact same religion as their parents. Coincidence? Probably not. I suspect the same analysis likely holds true in other religions and geographies. Is it 99%? I don't know, maybe not. Is it 90? Could be, and wouldn't surprise me.

 

[mr roboto]

Do you not like the numbers quoted upthread? I'm confused.

 

[proninja]

One thing about that report is that it considers a switch in denomination to be a change in religion, and I'm not sure that's entirely accurate for our purposes. I was raised in a fairly mainline evangelical protestant church, and as an adult have become much more reformed. I technically have swapped from Baptist to Presbyterian, but I don't consider that switching religions. I follow the same God as my parents despite disagreements with them on a few secondary issues I consider important but within bounds of Christianity. So that 54% number is a lot lower than I'd consider it to actually be.

 

[shader]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.

It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

Joe,

Your doctor analogy isn't apt. In that context, a kid could choose to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, and there is no "right" answer. It's a decision like in choosing a religion, but no career choice is right to the exclusion of all others, and you don't have to hinge your life in an underlying factual premise that cannot be confirmed. Religion is different. You pick one, and to believe in one, you have to believe it's right, and therefore by definition all the others are wrong.

And to the influence question, when you're in high school and college, you are taught you can be ANYTHING. It's a menu and all of those options are open to anyone. Most religious households don't operate that way. I don't expect that in a Christian household parents would tell their kids to be Buddhist if they want (and give them the opportunity to learn it), or Jewish, or other. The reaction frequently would be more like another poster in this thread indicated-disappointment that the kids let the faith. The pressures and situation are so entirely different from a family who would love to see their kid be a doctor.

So I don't think that analogy applies. I suspect you and others would like to think you had that kind of unfettered free choice in choosing your religion, but it's awful uncanny that you (and most) happened to choose the same religion, of all the options out there, that your parents raised you in.

The other issue here is that choosing to pass on becoming a doctor doesn't mean you are denying the life philosophy of your parents and saying their beliefs were false.

My sister is very religious. So is her husband. My nephew was just baptized. My sister stated how proud she was of him because he made the decision to get baptized all on his own. I found this a bit odd since this really wasn't true. He is 7. He is too young to make such a monumental choice about his life on his own. From day 1 he was told 10% of his allowance and any money he received was to be donated. He has been taken to church almost every single sunday his whole life. He was told during sunday school all these things were true. His parents have reinforced these things his whole life. They have volunteered repeatedly, been a huge part of their church council, and have recruited other members to join their church. Every xmas and easter they spend hours discussing jesus and god, right before they get lots and lots of presents.

If he decided to not get baptized they would have been crushed. He would have essentially been turning his back on what is a HUGE part of their life and believing they are basically wrong.

How many 7 year olds make that choice? Now imagine how much harder it would be for his little brother to make the decision to NOT get baptized, since his big brother that he has always wanted to be like made the "choice".

Sure, a 7 year old is going to make a choice to appease the parents. That's natural. But as every child grows up and becomes an adult, they go back and analyze their beliefs. They end up making their own choices. The culture of society is a big driver of that as well. In the US, there is a melting pot of religions and religious beliefs. As such, people here are more likely to make their own choices than they are in a society where the vast majority of people are a certain religion.

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

Here's the thing though, if you truly believe that people make a free and clear choice when they are adults, you kind of have to believe that there are no oustide influences in your life. That people completely shape themselves and their surroundings and their upbringing do not affect their behavior or their choices.

Religion is a pretty unique thing too. There arent too many choices in life people debate where on the one side is what friends and family believe and on the other side is what friends and family believe will lead to eternal damnation.

I never said outside influences don't affect many, or that people aren't shaped by their surroundings. The extent to which every child analyzes their beliefs as they get older differs based on their society, their family and their religion, no doubt.

In reality, there aren't a lot of religions that teach that you can't leave that particular religion or you will burn in hell. Many protestant religions go from church to church depending on the preacher, their spouse, etc. Very few believe eternal damnation will come to them if they go to the Second Baptist Church instead of the First Baptist Church, or even if they go to the new megachurch down the road. The "my religion or eternal hellfire" is becoming more of a rarity. As for those that do believe in hellfire, they usually believe that as long as you are a part of SOME "christian" religion, you are ok.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.

It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

Joe,

Your doctor analogy isn't apt. In that context, a kid could choose to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, and there is no "right" answer. It's a decision like in choosing a religion, but no career choice is right to the exclusion of all others, and you don't have to hinge your life in an underlying factual premise that cannot be confirmed. Religion is different. You pick one, and to believe in one, you have to believe it's right, and therefore by definition all the others are wrong.

And to the influence question, when you're in high school and college, you are taught you can be ANYTHING. It's a menu and all of those options are open to anyone. Most religious households don't operate that way. I don't expect that in a Christian household parents would tell their kids to be Buddhist if they want (and give them the opportunity to learn it), or Jewish, or other. The reaction frequently would be more like another poster in this thread indicated-disappointment that the kids let the faith. The pressures and situation are so entirely different from a family who would love to see their kid be a doctor.

So I don't think that analogy applies. I suspect you and others would like to think you had that kind of unfettered free choice in choosing your religion, but it's awful uncanny that you (and most) happened to choose the same religion, of all the options out there, that your parents raised you in.

The other issue here is that choosing to pass on becoming a doctor doesn't mean you are denying the life philosophy of your parents and saying their beliefs were false.

My sister is very religious. So is her husband. My nephew was just baptized. My sister stated how proud she was of him because he made the decision to get baptized all on his own. I found this a bit odd since this really wasn't true. He is 7. He is too young to make such a monumental choice about his life on his own. From day 1 he was told 10% of his allowance and any money he received was to be donated. He has been taken to church almost every single sunday his whole life. He was told during sunday school all these things were true. His parents have reinforced these things his whole life. They have volunteered repeatedly, been a huge part of their church council, and have recruited other members to join their church. Every xmas and easter they spend hours discussing jesus and god, right before they get lots and lots of presents.

If he decided to not get baptized they would have been crushed. He would have essentially been turning his back on what is a HUGE part of their life and believing they are basically wrong.

How many 7 year olds make that choice? Now imagine how much harder it would be for his little brother to make the decision to NOT get baptized, since his big brother that he has always wanted to be like made the "choice".

Sure, a 7 year old is going to make a choice to appease the parents. That's natural. But as every child grows up and becomes an adult, they go back and analyze their beliefs. They end up making their own choices. The culture of society is a big driver of that as well. In the US, there is a melting pot of religions and religious beliefs. As such, people here are more likely to make their own choices than they are in a society where the vast majority of people are a certain religion.

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

That's really interesting. Thanks.

Post #6, guy.

Kidding. Nice work, shader, thanks for digging that up.

 

[The Commish]

It's really not...it's a straw man as you illustrate in your initial sentence. Gravity doesn't/hasn't changed, but our understanding/discovery of it has. What happened at the universe's creation hasn't changed, but our understanding/discovery has. Same with personal relationships with God. He's constant. His teaching is constant. Our understanding is ever changing.

I totally agree. But if I were not a Christian and I looked at a church that dogmatically proclaimed a 6 day creation account, I would laugh at them, and it would absolutely be an obstacle to me wanting to identify with them or trust them on much of anything. I think it is important that we admit when our interpretation of parts of scripture has likely been wrong even if the proof from of it comes from a different realm than the theological. And I don't think that's a black mark on the church.

I'll quote St Augustine here (with a cap doff to Jayrok who introduced me to the quote)

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

Definitely with you GB....I pretty much avoid any congregation or group who is uncomfortable with "I don't know" or "That doesn't make sense to me". Based on my personal experiences that is a significant red flag.

 

[Otis]

Do you not like the numbers quoted upthread? I'm confused.

Which numbers and how do they apply to this question? Did you look at p. 24 of that linked document? Am I reading it wrong?

 

[mr roboto]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

 

[Otis]

One thing about that report is that it considers a switch in denomination to be a change in religion, and I'm not sure that's entirely accurate for our purposes. I was raised in a fairly mainline evangelical protestant church, and as an adult have become much more reformed. I technically have swapped from Baptist to Presbyterian, but I don't consider that switching religions. I follow the same God as my parents despite disagreements with them on a few secondary issues I consider important but within bounds of Christianity. So that 54% number is a lot lower than I'd consider it to actually be.

This is important. Moving from one of the many, many Christian churches to another is not an informative data point. I want to see a fundamental change in beliefs for it to be a meaningful data point.

 

[Otis]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I challenge you to find a religion thread that went 8 pages deep here and stayed as respectful and even-keeled as this one.

J

 

[shader]

clipped

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

Thanks Shader. I don't know much about the Pew Report but I have often heard their name in Religious polling. I think they're well respected.

Couple of questions I'd ask on this.

As with any statistics, one has to be careful to make sure "the rest of the story" is there. For instance, is there something in Hindu culture that makes leaving the religion way worse than it is in Buddhist culture? I don't know that.

And the bigger question I'd ask is what do these numbers tell us? Is it better to have an organization where the vast majority of the children grow into adults and then follow their parent's choice? Or does it speak better for an organization where the vast majority of the children grow into adults that reject their parent's choice?

Not to single you out Otis (while I single you out, GB ) what would you rather see? The list above has a wide range. Which end of the list is more attractive from the legacy angle?

J

It certainly raises interesting points, doesn't it?

If your religion has a very high retention rate, I guess the question I'd ask is why? It can't have anything to do with it being the "truth" because Hindu's and Catholics share an almost identical rate of "I was born into this religion" adherents, at around 90%, and the two religions are very far apart.

If your church had an abnormally low retention rate, you'd also probably want to ask yourself why that is? Are people leaving because they don't believe it? Can't live up to the standards?

 

[The Commish]

If his teaching is constant, after 2000 years how much more change can you make to your understanding? You would think a God could be clear enough that after a couple/few millennia his followers would understand it by now?

God's larger than the universe and we know about less than 1% of it. There's more to it than the Bible. It's not an answer book. I won't ever learn everything and I'm not required to. You've asked this question a million times and I've given the same "there are two parties in every act of teaching" answer....I still believe that. Just get tired of repeating the same tired answer to the same tired questions. Maybe this answer will be better, but i know it won't be

 

[Otis]

As an aside -- and I know this is a cheap shot -- but I'm watching this special on the Boston marathon on CNN right now, and it's very hard to believe any all powerful and good-meaning being in any universe would allow savagery like this. And it happens way, way too often in this world. That's disappointing.

 

[mr roboto]

Article that points out differences in switching religion in US vs England (US has far more switching than UK).

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/08/religion-switching-in-the-uk-and-usa/

 

[The Commish]

Our understanding of God changes person by person and moment by moment, in addition to any developing systematic theology.

Your understanding is based on the Bible correct? How far along in the development of this systematic theology would you say we are ~2000 years into it?

Is Christianity one religion or is it a subjective one (changing person to person)?

Christians are a diverse group that have a few beliefs that unite them. These can, for the most part, be found in creeds. It is important to define what Christians are united on, so this is actually a good question too.

The Nicene Creed is a good place to start for those who are curious. This is what unites Christians. These are the things that make you a Christian vs a different, non-Christian religion. You'll notice as you read through there that there are a ton of topics that aren't there. It doesn't speak to evolution, homosexuality, capital punishment, gender roles, the government's role in society, or any of the things that can and are hot button issues in the church today. Those are the things that we can (and do) disagree on. Ideally it will be more like brotherly disagreement, unfortunately it doesn't always play out that way.

Theology is not a finished study. Much like people still study philosophy, math, and science, we continue to study theology and we continue to learn from it. I'm not sure why we would expect theology as a discipline to be finished on a timeline we don't expect any other disciplines to be subject to. You wouldn't say "why haven't we figured out math, we've been studying it for thousands of years" or point to a disagreement on P versus NP as proof that math is somehow flawed simply because we don't know the answer (or if it can even be answered.)

Theology is hard. There is a lot going on. I am in some ways thankful for this because it gives a rich history of great minds that I can read and study from. But man, sometimes it would be nice if it were easy.

Actually, I agree...it was a good question and a good answer You're on fire my man.

 

[Otis]

clipped

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

Thanks Shader. I don't know much about the Pew Report but I have often heard their name in Religious polling. I think they're well respected.

Couple of questions I'd ask on this.

As with any statistics, one has to be careful to make sure "the rest of the story" is there. For instance, is there something in Hindu culture that makes leaving the religion way worse than it is in Buddhist culture? I don't know that.

And the bigger question I'd ask is what do these numbers tell us? Is it better to have an organization where the vast majority of the children grow into adults and then follow their parent's choice? Or does it speak better for an organization where the vast majority of the children grow into adults that reject their parent's choice?

Not to single you out Otis (while I single you out, GB ) what would you rather see? The list above has a wide range. Which end of the list is more attractive from the legacy angle?

J

It certainly raises interesting points, doesn't it?

If your religion has a very high retention rate, I guess the question I'd ask is why? It can't have anything to do with it being the "truth" because Hindu's and Catholics share an almost identical rate of "I was born into this religion" adherents, at around 90%, and the two religions are very far apart.

If your church had an abnormally low retention rate, you'd also probably want to ask yourself why that is? Are people leaving because they don't believe it? Can't live up to the standards?

I don't find the quoted statistic all that meaningful in this discussion. Other statistics at that link are far more pertinent.

 

[Otis]

Article that points out differences in switching religion in US vs England (US has far more switching than UK).

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/08/religion-switching-in-the-uk-and-usa/

Of course it does.

 

[mr roboto]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

Wait, you just want to narrow the scope to find what you are looking for? I thought we were discussing the fluidity of religious belief from what you were exposed to growing up to how you believe as an adult. It seems that culture matters far more in religious switching than the actual religion of the household.

 

[Otis]

Article that points out differences in switching religion in US vs England (US has far more switching than UK).

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/08/religion-switching-in-the-uk-and-usa/

By the way, did you read the text at your link?

"What’s more, non-Christians almost all have stayed religious – very few have switched out to non-religion. I guess that’s because these people are mostly first or second-generation immigrants, for whom religion forms an important part of their cultural identity."

 

[shader]

As an aside -- and I know this is a cheap shot -- but I'm watching this special on the Boston marathon on CNN right now, and it's very hard to believe any all powerful and good-meaning being in any universe would allow savagery like this. And it happens way, way too often in this world. That's disappointing.

I think it's important to remember that from a biblical perspective, this wasn't how God planned the earth to be, but how man twisted things. Also, the bombing wasn't carried out by God, but by a deranged, warped young man. Also, if you were to believe in God, you'd have faith that God has a plan to erase the bad and provide a bright future free of this kind of thing. I realize that if you don't believe in God or the bible, the above may be nonsense. But if you are a believer, there are biblical teachings that answer that question that don't involve "it's a mystery" or "it's part of God's plan", because clearly those answers don't usually provide much comfort.

 

[Otis]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

Wait, you just want to narrow the scope to find what you are looking for? I thought we were discussing the fluidity of religious belief from what you were exposed to growing up to how you believe as an adult.It seems that culture matters far more in religious switching than the actual religion of the household.

I've since post 1 said that it's a combination of (1) parents and (2) geography. Of course culture matters. Even on micro levels. Certain towns on Long Island are far more likely to have Jewish kids; one or two towns over, 90% Roman Catholic. That difference magnifies when you talk about parts of the world.

 

[Eminence]

As an aside -- and I know this is a cheap shot -- but I'm watching this special on the Boston marathon on CNN right now, and it's very hard to believe any all powerful and good-meaning being in any universe would allow savagery like this. And it happens way, way too often in this world. That's disappointing.

Again, there are opposites in almost everything in the Universe. If one subscribes to basic physics and the supernatural, one would assume there is an opposing evil force compared to the good force. The Bible all but confirms this (Satan) if that's the canon this thread is focused on.

 

[shader]

clipped

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

Thanks Shader. I don't know much about the Pew Report but I have often heard their name in Religious polling. I think they're well respected.

Couple of questions I'd ask on this.

As with any statistics, one has to be careful to make sure "the rest of the story" is there. For instance, is there something in Hindu culture that makes leaving the religion way worse than it is in Buddhist culture? I don't know that.

And the bigger question I'd ask is what do these numbers tell us? Is it better to have an organization where the vast majority of the children grow into adults and then follow their parent's choice? Or does it speak better for an organization where the vast majority of the children grow into adults that reject their parent's choice?

Not to single you out Otis (while I single you out, GB ) what would you rather see? The list above has a wide range. Which end of the list is more attractive from the legacy angle?

J

It certainly raises interesting points, doesn't it?

If your religion has a very high retention rate, I guess the question I'd ask is why? It can't have anything to do with it being the "truth" because Hindu's and Catholics share an almost identical rate of "I was born into this religion" adherents, at around 90%, and the two religions are very far apart.

If your church had an abnormally low retention rate, you'd also probably want to ask yourself why that is? Are people leaving because they don't believe it? Can't live up to the standards?

I don't find the quoted statistic all that meaningful in this discussion. Other statistics at that link are far more pertinent.

Feel free to point them out. I felt that one was significant, but I'd love to get your opinion of the other stats that relate to this discussion.