Then you go to a tolerant church. Good for you.

But I don't believe we need a church - and some obvious fairy tale on how the world began - to teach our children to love all mankind and not exclude any group, to forgive those who hurt us, and to help the needy.

If you agree that religion is not needed to teach these things, then why have it in the first place?

Well, I agree with you. And I never said we need a fairy tale to teach children how the world began. My point is that teaching children to forgive others and to help the needy is not exactly teaching intolerance. That was my whole point. pretty sure I never said that we need religion to teach children how the world began! Of course the church is not necessary to teach these things to children.

I don't go to church anymore but just trying to point out that not all churches are intolerant.

Historically, religion was a huge part of the community. It is a place where people feel safe and welcome. Some people really love the social aspect of it... which is probably why I stopped going. I'm not a big fan of church because it doesn't suit my personality or lifestyle. But I don't knock those who like it.

People embrace religion for various reasons - cultural, social network, sometimes because they are lonely, or searching for purpose. Who knows? Why is this such a mystery? Religion is clearly a comfort when people are looking for community or faced with illness and death. It's a coping thing.

going back to the judgemental thing...
now i dont hate ppl who are fat, socially awkward or w/e. but i do hate ppl who realize they have flaws, who hate those flaws, yet all they do is complain and dont do anything about it.
a friend of mine is 32 now, he hasnt had a gf in over 10 years. everytime we watch a sports game together he gets drunk and whines about that. now, i go out alot, but after offering him to take him with me for a gazillion times i gave up.
i get that he's unhappy, i rly do, but unless you try to do something about it, you better stfu. everybody complains once in a while but i'm sick of hearing the same story over and over again.

The thing is that as a parent, you can manage your child taking the good things from the church experience and doing away with some potentially harmful things.

You seem to be ignoring that going to church can be a very positive experience for many, many (maybe even millions) of children and adults. You're only taking the potentially harmful things and making church only about those things.

I think that's the wrong approach and ironically very intolerant and close minded on your part.

I didn't ignore it, I admitted it in my las paragraph

Coming from someone who went to church often as a child, and is now very anti-organized religion, I still have to agree with Goodie. I think there's a lot more to going to church as a child besides bombarding them with fairy tales and illogical nonsense. Things like driving good morals in to them, spending time with family, etc is all very useful I think. I'm also talking about a very young age, lets say birth-9 or 10 yrs old. I would most likely fall in to the category of agnostic and think organized religions are a farce, but I will still likely take my children to church at a very young age for the reasons above. I think there's much more to it between 'lets brainwash the kids' and 'every minute inside a church is a detriment to a child's intellectual growth'. I respect your opinions regarding religion dominic but I think here in particular you're a little off. Once your children are at an age that they can think for themselves, as long as you've brought them up well intellectually and logically in other aspects of life, I think its reasonable to assume they will dismiss the absurdity of it themselves.

What morals are derived from any religious teachings that could not be derived from the experience of being a human being?

We know that hurting/stealing/lying to others is a bad thing. They bring negative repercussions. We do not need any religious dogma to teach us "morals". We learn this as children.

As cliche' as it sounds, the thing I've realized the most lately is my own mortality. I'm 36, I absolutely know that I will not live a long healthy life due to the things I do right now. I'm ok with that.

The only purpose I have at this point is to raise my children with one lesson - to derive what is true from what is untrue. What is true may very well cause issues with the general public, and the relationships they may have with other people, I understand that. My views aren't popular, but I don't live my life to be popular, I live my life to be "right".

Religion and it's beliefs are "not right". It's a detriment to society, and a detriment to us as a species. I firmly believe that. While I may raise my children in a way that many people would say is antisocial, I would argue that believing in things the rest of the world believes as true is living a lie if deep down inside you don't believe them to be true.

I realize I'm rambling. I guess I'm not eloquent enough to express my feelings in the right manner. What I will do is raise my child/children to treat people well and nurture their personal relationships while seeking truth in this world.

In the end, that really is all there is.

That's the only sentence I can really agree with in this post. I think you're going down a very dangerous and VERY harmful road with your children if you are deliberately teaching them to be antisocial. That will very likely lead to unhappiness and I can't imagine that's what you want.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as though your saying "I'm miserable and antisocial and unhappy so I'm going to make my kids the same way because dammit I'm right". That's absurd.

I think you want your kids to be happy and different people take different roads to get there. I'm usually not critical in how people choose to show their kids the road but I'm nearly certain the road you're describing is unlikely to lead to happiness.

And yes, the morals that are taught at church can be taught outside of church. Obviously. However, that does not mean that going to church is harmful. Having another entity drive those morals home is never going to be a bad thing and I think going to church accomplishes that. Not to mention some of the other benefits that church offers which have been mentioned already by myself and others.

By no means am I teaching them to be antisocial, I hope that isn't how what I wrote came off. What I meant was that I don't want them to accept things simply because everyone else accepts things. I don't accept what everyone else believes as true simply because they believe it. I usually try to think things through and come up with my own opinions.

Religion is one of those things. Also, while I do agree there can very well be some good things that come out of religion, I believe the bad things outweigh them by far. The ignorance towards the natural world, science, things we accept socially, etc. I just don't agree with the religious life in the least bit.

I have a very different view towards happiness. I won't raise my child to simply be happy. I will provide them with all the resources, love, and fun things to do as children to hope they have a happy childhood, but their happiness isn't my main concern. My main concern is for them to be good at things, to be educated, to find direction. I believe happiness comes from having direction, from a sense of accomplishment, from achieving things, and from being a good person and treating other people well.

Honestly, the unhappiest people are the ones who did all the things in life to "make them happy". They are the ones who always did the easy thing, who never worked hard at anything, who never had any direction or goals - I see it now quite clearly. I think that we have an epidemic of people in this country who are unhappy and it comes from a generation of children raised to "be happy". The problem is that these people have no idea what that is, so they feel lost and unsatisfied.

The most dissatisfied people with life are the ones who have problems with their relationships with others and their work. I'm going to avoid that the best I can with them.

Have you been to church in your life? I'm just asking because I think what you really have a problem with are those that believe in religion in it's entirety. I agree that those people are usually somewhat unintelligent and certainly not what I would necessarily want my children to grow up to be. However, that really has absolutely nothing to do with going to church. I went to church as a kid and have gone to church as an adult. I don't believe in any of it but I take the good and discard the bad (which is borderline bad anyways). Most people are able to do this. And the good part of church and religion is VERY good and something that a lot of people could use more of.

In terms of happiness your not understanding, at all. What I'm saying is you make the judgment of what you think will make your children happy and you try to teach them what you can about those things. You've done that. I agree with all of the things that you currently think leads to happiness. But don't try to pretend that you're ultimate goal for your children isn't still happiness. Your main concern ABSOLUTELY is happiness.

This is the best quote you've had yet:

"I believe happiness comes from having direction, from a sense of accomplishment, from achieving things, and from being a good person and treating other people well."

You're trying really hard to try to be "different" and to think uniquely. However, most of what you say is very much the status quo for most good parents.

In summary, I think we're on the same page wrt to raising children. You just have an unorthodox way of expressing your viewpoints.

I was raised Catholic and I consider the entire experience useless and even detrimental. I don't think at all the "good part of church and religion is VERY good" in the least. I think it's outrageous and a flat-out lie, something I will not raise my children to believe. I also don't want them to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. No logical thinking person can believe in what the church (whichever church that may be) teaches. It's absurd nonsense. I also disagree that most people can discard the bad when it comes to religion. Religious teachings poisons the mind. I have no problem with people going or participating, knock yourself out, just don't ask me or my family to be part of it. I refuse.

I'm not trying to be different, my views ARE different. They aren't mainstream at all. Its not like I'm going to raise them Amish or anything, I just don't want them to accept things because others do. If they think about it and then accept it, fine, I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with them just believing in crap because its what society says they should believe in.

Anyway, this isn't a religious or a child-raising thread, so maybe we should continue in one of those.

Yeah, that's no revelation. I feel the same way and don't feel as though I'm much different than most parents I know.

Nobody's asking you or your family to participate in church but you're contradicting yourself. You say that church poisons the mind and in previous posts you've indicated you look down at those that go. Then in this post you say you have no problem with people going or participating.

Make up your mind. The problem with what you are saying is your distaste for other people's choices. I have no problem whatsoever with you not wanting to go to church or send your kids to church. I expect the same in return.

i've felt the need to spread this song around for the last 24 hours. anyone reading or posting in this thread may relate or should relate.



i can only confess in generalities, but whatever those confessions may be, there ain't much i can do about 'em now.

There is a flaw in your logic. I will boldly state that if God does not exist, than objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. I can go into further detail if you would like, but I realize this is not the proper sub forum.

You're right, I don't want you to go into further detail and this is not the proper sub forum.

And that's fine with me.

I am now full ****** dating 2 chicks at the same time while they've got no idea of that. I basically never cheated on any of them because they both said they just wanted to have sex with me

One is giving me so much understanding and comfort because I'm like her sex educator and this was our "agreement" (so basically sex is funny and intimate but not really good because she is not confident in her body and she should be) even though she is 7 years older than I am and divorced.

The other one is a good looking asian chick with huge boobs but a fit body, we just met for sex and she wanted that to be clear. Sex is incredible but our conversations lack deepness and she is ugly inside ("I have to marry a rich man, he has to take care of all my needs, I wanna be lazy and live off his money").

Now, both are getting more into me and want a real relationship and I don't know what to choose. Well, actually I kinda know that I want to keep the first one because she is a lovely girl in many ways but if that's the case I'm headed into a troubled relationship cause she has 2 kids and I'm not sure I'm ready for a long-term relationship yet. I also don't want to hurt her in any way because she is a beautiful yet fragile creature.

The other one can't be anything more than a sex relationship because I can't fall in love of that profiting spirit of her and actually I don't think she really cares about me lol.

So, here I am faced between boobs or brains.

Why not tell both of them that you are not ready for a monogamous relationship?

what are the chances that A gets better in bed?
what are the chances that B stops being superficial?


edit:
oh you've edited your post...

Brother

Confession: When I worked in a cafe many years ago, whenever someone ordered "decaf" I would always give them regular. I regret nothing!

****, that was fast.
A is 30ish with kinda weird feelings towards sex (ie : if I feel at ease in bed I'm a slut) because of her education and her slutty mother she refused everything from. She actually stopped having sex with her past husband for the last 7 years because of that. He actually was a pussy and she needed someone with sexual drive yet understanding.

She will be better with confidence back to new levels but am I part of bringing her confidence to a new level ? I am truly caring about her because I see her struggling yet staying strong and that's a lovely spirit.


B is 20ish, crazy about sex. I dated a few asian chicks in the past and had a LTR with one and the "marry the rich man" part was part of almost all of them to a point I wondered if that was not part of the education and something I hated. I don't know if she can change on this part.

Katy, you bring a good point : plain honesty will surely make me look like a ****** but is better off than hurting any of them.

Edit : I am no weird ****er/player. This kind of situation never happened to me before, I am truly a "casual dating then having sex together if we feel connection" type of guy. B jumped on me at one point before A -whom I wanted to have a real relationship with- told me she was not interested in no more than sex.

..... RED FLAG WAVING IN YOUR FACE.......... You are playing the role of rescuer/teacher? Be careful about this. If it's all for fun and for sexual pleasure then that is one thing and I get it. Carry on.

But if you think you will be the one to instill more confidence in her and heal her, I sort of doubt it will happen in the long run. just my .02. imho.

You are right again on this one, I should not play the white knight and make it clear that I can't play this part.

Actually, I can be better off alone than in a white knight relationship or an empty, yet sexually satisfying, relationship. Thanks for the input, it cleared my mind, I will talk to them now.

nyaf,

From what you've said, I don't think it's a good idea to attach yourself to either one. B for obvious reasons. A, because while you can be a part of A's transformation, you can't be the driving force behind it, and you shouldn't assume that anything will change.

Like katy said, I am all for casual whatever. But when it comes to getting into a relationship, I think you have to ask yourself if you could be in a relationship with the person as they are today. If the answer is no, then no relationship. She has a lot of baggage for her to get through, and there are likely to be some big obstacles before she can have a functional relationship. How long ago did she separate from her husband?

She got separated from him 2 years ago. He is still in the same town as her, they are still able to function more or less as a family. They are able to hang out together and still have fun together it's just that they know their couple is dead. They do take care very well of their kids to a point that amazes me, they are very responsible and caring for their children. She was not attracted anymore to him while he was and still is today.