Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

children can make their own mind up about religion when they grow up...

814 replies

AliGrylls · 07/04/2011 12:05

Okay I have just read this on another thread but this is a statement I hear quite a lot and want to ask the question.

If all you teach your child is atheism how will they make their mind up about religion when they grow up because they have no religion other than atheism?

They will know nothing other than what you have taught them so they have nothing to make their mind up about - they will be atheist, by default. If people genuinely want their children to make their own mind up they have to provide them with a reasonable alternative (ie, Judaism / Christianity / Islam).

I don't actually know any adults who have been brought up atheist who have thought all of a sudden "I believe in God, I am going to go to Church".

OP posts:
ChickensHaveNoEyebrows · 14/04/2011 15:00

It's actually very hard to find info online that doesn't come either from a biased (one way or another) viewpoint. For example, the religious sites are adament that the Gospels are enough while one sceptic site stated that as we hadn't dug up a skeleton or found his house it must all be bollocks. Neither is particularly strong in their argument Hmm

WinterOfOurDiscountTents · 14/04/2011 15:04

SGB has a point in that there is a definite academic argument that several different people have been conflated into one "character" if you like, in the manner of Robin Hood.

Think about it, Roman occupation, beleagured locals, fledgling religion and/or political groupings...from a purely logical point of view it is entirely possible that there were a number of different people who were agitators, leaders etc etc, and stories combined in an apocryphal manner to create one ongoing character. Add this to the fact that the gospels were written many years after the dates given.....

Its one theory, as worthy of study as any other. Certainly not one you can disprove anyway, so by your own standards of logic, its a passable argument.

Roseflower · 14/04/2011 15:14

But to say with absolute authority Jesus is mythical is quite something else!

Yes the theory Jesus is an amalgamation of historical figures is a well known theory.

MichaelaS · 14/04/2011 15:21

hadn't heard the amalgamation theory before - very interesting and yes i can see it has merit. Plus the Jews were waiting for a messiah figure who was expected to be a military figure and anti-Roman occupation etc.

The gospels hint this was a problem for the (non amalgamated Christian interpretation) Jesus as the wider crowd kept wanting him to lead them into a rebellion and were quite pleased when he finally decided to go to Jerusalem then very disappointed and confused when he allowed himself to be arrested and got killed rather than formed an army.

DuelingFanjo · 14/04/2011 15:31

I think there probably was a Jesus bloke knocking about, possibly even claiming to be the son of god and all that. I still think that God and all that stuff is a myth though.

MichaelaS · 14/04/2011 15:41

duellingfanjo yes i think that's a common view. the alpha course first "proper" week after their intro week deals with who you think Jesus was.... did he exist at all / good teacher / moral person / deluded david ike type / actually the son of God etc. What the bible says he claimed and what evidence there is.

Although they are unlikely to present the evidence against to be honest.

but i learnt a lot on the course, something i did after i made my mind up about who i thought Jesus was.

Roseflower · 14/04/2011 16:15

I think there is merit in CS Lewis idea's.

Jesus was either as he claimed.

Jesus was a lunatic.

Jesus was a liar.

Therefore is there an option for 'Jesus was a good moral man but wasn't really son of God'?

It's an intresting point.

I think there probably was a Jesus bloke knocking about, possibly even claiming to be the son of god and all that

He he. I got a vision of Karl Pilkington then (by the way I think he is great)

SolarPanel · 14/04/2011 16:42

Winter, of course I'm aware that Catholics are Christians, provided that they accept Jesus as their saviour. Yes, like all denominations they don't completely ignore the OT (but hopefully read it in the context of now having the NT as well) and they may accept what their church tells them. That's completely in line with what I said - "Of course, many of us do also take notice of the Church and the Bible, but we do so primarily from a viewpoint of following Christ, not the other way round." Unless we have incorrect priorities according to Jesus, of course.

SolarPanel · 14/04/2011 16:46

Are you sure about that? Or are you just listening to a minority who shout the loudest? And what about those who don't hold such views, what about what they have to say? Ever read any feminist theology?

"the vast bulk of the powerful myth peddlers in the Abrahamic traditions are very keen on the inferiority of women"

SolarPanel · 14/04/2011 16:47

Thank you Roseflower, yes that's what I meant :)

"I get what you mean Solar. For those who truly follow Christ's word it is quite different to following what the church says in some cases. Of course there will be others who are different and we are only speaking for ourselves."

Snorbs · 14/04/2011 17:08

"I heard a quote somewhere that there is more evidence for the historical person Jesus existing than for the historical person Julius Caesar."

I've heard that quote too. It makes a great sound-bite but it's simply not true.

There are a couple of memoirs written by Caesar himself still in existence and at least one surviving bust of him that was made in his lifetime. And then there are the huge number of contemporaneous references to him in other works, his name carved into stone and the coins bearing his image that were struck while he was emperor, and so on and so forth.

By contrast, nearly all the evidence for Jesus's existence comes from the New Testament. There are a couple of passing references to him from other sources but nothing contemporaneous. That's it. For what it's worth I think the man did exist but I don't believe he was anything other than a particularly charismatic preacher.

WinterOfOurDiscountTents · 14/04/2011 17:16

Come off it Solar, your words are there for all to see...

"Christians follow Christ, we do not follow the problems of the Old Testament which Jesus came to overthrow, and we do not follow "the Church"

that is Simply Not True for the majority of the Worlds Christians. It is categorically, demonstrably WRONG. That is not my opinion, that is fact. Ask the Pope if you don't believe me, the head of the worlds biggest collection of Christians.

DuelingFanjo · 14/04/2011 17:55

having had very little religious instruction I don't know much... is there 'evidence' or documentation of 'God' from before any documentation of Jesus?

DuelingFanjo · 14/04/2011 17:57

Actually, that's probably a supid question? I mean I know there wer gods (greek, roman etc) but was the world (or parts of it) sat about worshiping 'God' and waiting for his son to return/arrive?

Snorbs · 14/04/2011 18:04

The Christian God is effectively the same as the Jewish God which is effectively the same as the Muslim God. Jews were worshipping God way before Jesus was born. Judaism itself has its roots in ancient Babylonian practises and beliefs.

Roseflower · 14/04/2011 18:18

Duelling yes in the Old testament.

So the people following the OT would have been the Jews. The OT does say the Messiah will come.

Then after Jesus we get the New testament in which some people who believed in Jesus became his followers (Christians). .

Of course the people who did not believe Jesus (and are still waiting for the Messiah) carried on with being Jews and do not have the New Testament and follow the Torah which is a Herbrew bible that only has the first five books of Old testament in it.

Niecie · 14/04/2011 18:25

Duellingfanjo - The Jews were worshipping God before Jesus arrived. Jesus's birth was fortold in the bible - the difference between the Christians and the Jews is that the Christians were a subset of Jews who believed Jesus to be the son of God and the Jews didn't for obvious reasons i.e. they bumped him off so are hardly likely to admit that the bloke they bumped off was actually the son of God. Whoops doesn't quite cover it so they are still waiting. In very simple terms anyway.

Niecie · 14/04/2011 18:27

Oops x post with Roseflower

Original poster
AliGrylls · 14/04/2011 19:31

Niecie, out of everyone who has posted on here yours is the only one I find offensive.

Firstly, the Jews did not "bump Jesus off" - it is this myth that leads to anti-semitism. It was in fact everyone who was against Jesus. The Romans, the Jews and even his own disciples did not understand. This is what I find offensive.

Secondly, although much less importantly Christianity and Judaism are two separate religions. Christianity is not a subset of Judaism. We don't celebrate any of the same festivals. The only similarity is the fact we both read the old testament - although in Judaism it is seen as the truth and in Christianity the new testament is seen as the truth.

OP posts:
SolarPanel · 14/04/2011 20:07

Winter, you're right, I didn't describe very well what I was trying to say. What I mean is that Christians should be following Christ instead of primarily the OT or the Church. The reason I think this is important is because I think Jesus is worth following, regardless of the mistakes we as Christians often make, such as placing too much emphasis on the OT or churches. Again, I hope that clarifies what I meant, I think that's the best I can do I'm afraid! Have a good evening :)

nzshar · 14/04/2011 20:21

me and dp are agnostic and beleive that our child will decide when he is older if he wants to have organised religion in his life. I do not like but tolerate the amount of religion in our state system. If it was anymore than it is then would have words with the head. As far as I am concerned religion should not be mixed with education unless you choose a church school for your child. Why the hell is RE a compulsary subject in GCSE, but hey thats just my opinion.

SpringchickenGoldBrass · 14/04/2011 22:15

There's about the same amount of evidence for Jesus having existed ie there having been one charismatic bloke who got himself quite a following a couple of thousand years ago in a Roman-occupied chunk of the middle east (as opposed to a collection of rabble-rousers whose achievements were both bigged up and conflated into the acheivements of one individual), as there is for the Tooth Fairy, or elves ie lots of persistent folk tales and, er, that's about it.
The question I have never had any kind of an answer to is why people who believe in the central myth figures of one of the current Big Five get so arsey about having their beliefs placed in the same category as beliefs in fairies, pixies, horoscopes or ghosts. In terms of longevity of this latter category of belief, and the numbers of people who might be prepared to think, well, there must be something in it, they are comparable beliefs.

SolarPanel · 14/04/2011 22:30

A taster of some of the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus...

www.jesuscourse.info/thejesuscourse/extra-pages/historical-jesus.html

SpringchickenGoldBrass · 14/04/2011 22:33

SolarPanel: Yeah, right. Totally unbiased objective evidence from a bunch of crap-peddlers there, then.

SolarPanel · 14/04/2011 22:39

No, it's obviously a site written by believers. Not "crap-peddlers" such as the atheists who claim there's no historical evidence for Jesus. It's all there if you take the time to research it - but I don't think you want to...