Growing up in an irreligious household.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by st_swithin
Matzoh's really good with salsa.

matzoh pizza.

[jeibel]

i didn't read all the thread, so forgive meif i say something stupid.

Don't forget that a religious upbringing can mess up your mind pretty badly: it can create lots of unneeded guilt complex that are hard to comes to terms by once you grow up since they're planted so deep inside.
I don't mean only in relation to sex, but also in the need to upbring a moral standard that just isn't made for life in today's world, creating feeling of inadequancy, for example for "not caring enough" for others, caring more about presents than Christ birth at Xmas, etc etc ;p

This is especially important if the parents are not religious since she is made to inexplicably keep up a moral standard of constraints the parents (the real GODS of a kid) care nothing for.
Double standards which makes for a schizophrenic relationship.

Just my 0.2$

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by st_swithin
Matzoh's really good with salsa.

we had matzoh with salsa together in Forest Hills.

[Buck Birdseed]

I didn't read past page one of this thread (for ****'s sake, like I'm gonna read seven pages of goddamn theological debate intermixed with a few relevant posts), but I'm one of the people who was raised non-religiously, although my parents (at least my father) is quite an active Atheist so that might invalidate anything I say if you're so inclined.

I think the chief benefit you get from being raised irreligously is that you learn from an early age to question rules and principles, especially if you're involved in a community where many old systems still exist. The fact that a seven-year-old can because of it already grasp the basics of source criticism (that doesn't have to be true just because its in the bible!), institutional analysis (why do we sing christian songs at christmas?) and questioning authority (why have we been dragged along to church by school?) makes irreligousness a great training for life as an active citizen IMO.

As for the moral bit, I think you underestimate children's ability to reason logically. The vast majority of morality can be explained based on simple principles of just division, fairness etc., and I think children are much more receptive to "real" ethics than to unsubstantiated dogma. It doesn't take God to figure out you shouldn't hurt other people does it?

[Jack the Bodiless]

That's why the resurrection is necessary, because it confirms Christ as the Son of God, and that his instructions ought to work better than anything else.

Well, there wasn't a resurrection in early versions of Mark. The story ends with the discovery of the empty tomb, which could have been intended to indicate that Jesus was entirely "taken up to Heaven" rather than that he got up and walked out.

There wasn't originally an Ascension in the gospels either. Without a Resurrection, you wouldn't need one. It seems to have been added to deal with the awkward loose end of having Jesus rise from the dead and then not do very much.

So it seems that Christianity managed to get started without needing a resurrection, but that adding one was thought desirable.

[st_swithin]

I am Jack's disembodied soul.

[Alexander's Horse]

The catholic church here has lots of beach houses which you can use for free. That's good enough for me.

Everybody always seems to forget the fringe benefits....

[MrFun]

What is the average life span of a thread on Apolyton??

[JohnT]

Darkcloud might know. I'm sure he's made a list of thread lifespans.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by JohnT
Darkcloud might know. I'm sure he's made a list of thread lifespans.

Well, this particular thread seems to have regenerative qualities.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MrFun
What is the average life span of a thread on Apolyton??

life span or half life?

[MrFun]

um . . .

whichever, evil Aussie

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

Would that imply their moral teachings weren't divinely inspired for a spiritual Christian?

No, but neither do Christians preach that these teachers are the Son of God. The question was not, who should we believe in Christianity, but why Jesus ought to be superior to Muhammmed and Buddha. The only answer to that question, has to be the Resurrection.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jack:

Well, there wasn't a resurrection in early versions of Mark. The story ends with the discovery of the empty tomb, which could have been intended to indicate that Jesus was entirely "taken up to Heaven" rather than that he got up and walked out.

Let's see.

Mark 16:6-7

"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

An allusion to the appearances of Christ to the Apostles after his resurrection. Even so, you still have the other three which have more extensive accounts of the resurrection.

There wasn't originally an Ascension in the gospels either.

Any evidence for this claim Jack? Christ promised to rise, and to return to the Apostles before his death.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, but neither do Christians preach that these teachers are the Son of God. The question was not, who should we believe in Christianity, but why Jesus ought to be superior to Muhammmed and Buddha. The only answer to that question, has to be the Resurrection.

Still dodging the question:

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

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