No, a "Christian" is just a follower of Christ. Nothing else, not a book written about him/or not.
explaining god to a 3 year old
- Thread starter jas72
- Start date
No, a "Christian" is just a follower of Christ. Nothing else, not a book written about him/or not.
That's true a lot of people think Jesus = Bible and Organised Relgion where in fact Jesus was very outspoken towards the Church and Organised Relgion in his time and accused them of being corrupt.
And if Jesus ever does return he'll probably denounce the religious institutions just like he did last time. Also the four gospels have likely been distorted from his orignal teachings which were probably very short and simple proverbs i.e 'love thy neigbour' or be forgving.
Last edited:
Firstly I just want to point out the Church didn't exist back then, but I know what you mean
I suspect Jesus if he returned may denounce many aspect of modern society, including religion. However I don't think the records of what Jesus said are actually that distorted, or at all distorted really. But the way in which certain things are sometimes/often taught and interpreted is in my opinion.
Just read your edit. We know that a lot of the Gospels were not short at all, scholars have manuscripts dating back to the first century of most of the Gospels (including ones not in the Bible) which are almost identical to the current ones we read in the Bible. Also the Jesus didn't come (according to scripture both in and out of the Bible) to just remind everyone of the rules, it was, to use a cliché, bring light into the world.
Last edited:
What I meant by distortion was some of his parables in the NT are followed by what I believe incorrect explantions to the lay person about what he meant. For example some of his parables are extremely profound and esoteric yet they are followed by very mundane and I believe delibertately incorrect.
Last edited:
Firstly. befor ei get flamed as a reglious nut or whatever you guys like to call me.
I'd like to point out im a christian and i believe in evolution and the big bang theory. So im not a close minded idiot like some of the numpties on here think all people that have faith are.
My first agruement is to all the people that believe science disproves the existance of god.
The big bang theory, Is the "theory" not prove on how everything was created and their for has as much prove behind it as a couple of people randomly shouting figure;s that can be proven either to prove or disprove the event that happened and was never observed.
Secoundly> the big bang apperently happened when atoms popped out of nothingness and decide to act on them selfs to pull them self into a tight mass of atoms untill the pressure caused a implosions from the amount of energy formed beyound the holding capablities of the mass.
So my first question to all these "god dosn't exists" people ranting on this forum, is where and how did atoms suddenly appear out of nowhere. as any scientist will say you cant create anything from nothing so what or how did atoms suddenly com into existance?
also why did the atoms form closeslly to gether in a tight vacum when in a vacum of atoms need a strong force of heavy atoms to pull thems selfs together?
Also i would love to here the prove that god dosnt exist? because their about as much evidence that god dosnt exist as their is evidedence of how atoms became in a empty void?
and back to the orginal op answer. i would simply grow the kid as a recrational faithfull i.e teach him the values of the rweligion your assigned to i.e the morals that you where grown up and the standerd you set yourself and wait for him to be old enoth to decide for him self
also when i die and god turns out to be real the 1 hour a week i "waste" taking a look at my life wont have been a waste. while if he dosnt exist never mind.
but if he does exist all the non believes trying to force athesism down people throats are well and truely f%$£ed
I'd like to point out im a christian and i believe in evolution and the big bang theory. So im not a close minded idiot like some of the numpties on here think all people that have faith are.
My first agruement is to all the people that believe science disproves the existance of god.
The big bang theory, Is the "theory" not prove on how everything was created and their for has as much prove behind it as a couple of people randomly shouting figure;s that can be proven either to prove or disprove the event that happened and was never observed.
Secoundly> the big bang apperently happened when atoms popped out of nothingness and decide to act on them selfs to pull them self into a tight mass of atoms untill the pressure caused a implosions from the amount of energy formed beyound the holding capablities of the mass.
So my first question to all these "god dosn't exists" people ranting on this forum, is where and how did atoms suddenly appear out of nowhere. as any scientist will say you cant create anything from nothing so what or how did atoms suddenly com into existance?
also why did the atoms form closeslly to gether in a tight vacum when in a vacum of atoms need a strong force of heavy atoms to pull thems selfs together?
Also i would love to here the prove that god dosnt exist? because their about as much evidence that god dosnt exist as their is evidedence of how atoms became in a empty void?
and back to the orginal op answer. i would simply grow the kid as a recrational faithfull i.e teach him the values of the rweligion your assigned to i.e the morals that you where grown up and the standerd you set yourself and wait for him to be old enoth to decide for him self
also when i die and god turns out to be real the 1 hour a week i "waste" taking a look at my life wont have been a waste. while if he dosnt exist never mind.
but if he does exist all the non believes trying to force athesism down people throats are well and truely f%$£ed
Last edited:
Perhaps, a lot of the parables are explained by Jesus himself though. We will never really know though if the explanations given were the ones that Jesus intended though.
I believe it is currently accepted that often one person is born with penchants or abilities that others are not. While skills can be learned, some people simply have a natural... gift (for want of a better description) for them.
You are implying that anybody can be Einstein or Hawkins. I am stating you are wrong in my opinion.
Peoples minds work in different ways, this will be due to many different factors, some environmental, some chemical and some genetic.
One person is able to put aside reason and logic and believe in a higher power that can never be proven while another finds the idea so impossible they cannot bring themselves to that thought process no matter what.
In my humble opinion, philosophically speaking, person B has the ability to become what I am defining as a great scientific mind, while person As ability to ignore logic and fact means they can not.
Science is not purely the ability to do maths or collate data or design good experiments, it is a mind set, an ability to form cognitive thought processes based on logic and detach oneself from the parts of the human psyche that make belief in a God so attractive.
I would never contest that I am a brilliant scientist. However, I hope that my ability to think logically and my inability to put aside reality to accept a more comfortable mental existence will mean that somewhere along the way during my life, I am able to make an impact and be remembered. If not then ce la vis.
A very large portion of how we act and think is due to our childhood development, but i'm absolutely positive it is down to genetics also, this would allow for the possibility that one person may be drawn to a more spiritual existence than somebody else who is automatically drawn to a more logical, some would say scientific, existence.
You say there is no such thing as a scientific mind, I say there almost certainly is. We can define WHAT science is in very loose terms (logical thought, organised behaviour, good reasoning skills etc), some people naturally have these attributes while others do not, so how can you say the scientific mind does not exist, it is simply created and any person can be moulded as such? People who do not possess these skills can be taught the principles, but they are likely to never truly agree with them. For the person who fits the profile of having a scientific mind, they will not need to be taught, they will be obvious once pointed out or come naturally. This does not mean to say that all of these people will become "scientists", far from it, but they will live their lives in a far more scientific manner than those who possess different physchological traits.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Sounds like you've weighed it all up and you're not quite convinced either way. That, to me, equals Agnostic.
You can't be a "proper" Christian and accept that if God doesn't exist then "never mind" - that's not the point. If that's how you feel, then you aren't a Christian. It's about BELIEF, not acceptance.
A critical mind welcomes acceptance, and that leads to agnosticism or atheism, nothing else as far I'm concerned.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Also semi-pro-waster mentioned leaving out the old testament, I disagree, there are some great stories in there, don't miss them out if your going to read them to him. Good luck
There are some great stories but there is also a lot of vengeful God "I will smite you" too which might scare a small child so unless you already know the stories you'd have to be quite lucky in picking ones that don't feature it. I don't mean leaving them out forever, more waiting until the child either shows an interest or is a bit older and able to appreciate it.
I'm not entirely sure why so many people here seem to think that explaining a little bit about the Bible or religion equals indoctrination or brainwashing, all you would be doing was explaining a little bit about the World and what you/some people believe - after that you can still leave the child to make up their own mind.
For the love of God yantorsen, learn how to multi-quote!
Despite the large number of serious responses so far. Is it windy up there on your high horse?
Personally I have found closed minded people to be prevelant in both believers and non-believers.
I am going to have to disagree with you here. People do think in different ways and find some ways of thinking easier than others. I find coding to be remarkably easy for example, it just fits in to place, yet I know others that just can't grasp the logic structures as easily. There is such a thing as aptitude.
Despite the large number of serious responses so far. Is it windy up there on your high horse?
Personally I have found closed minded people to be prevelant in both believers and non-believers.
I am going to have to disagree with you here. People do think in different ways and find some ways of thinking easier than others. I find coding to be remarkably easy for example, it just fits in to place, yet I know others that just can't grasp the logic structures as easily. There is such a thing as aptitude.
It depends on how it is done to be honest. At that age a child is remarkably impressionable and so if something is presented as being the right way to do things then it can take hold for quite a long time. Hence we are currently impressing on our 3 year old the importance of please and thank you.
I find it especially ironic that most of the people who claim this tend to advocate indoctrination into the faith of atheism instead... Despite being equally unable to prove it's validity or relevance.
This is the first time I've done this in years, but seriously dude, you need to go back to school and learn grammar. At least 90% of your post makes no sense.
Also, why do you need to fill the unexplainable with a God? At the moment, we don't fully understand the Big Bang, but that shouldn't automatically mean we should all believe that superman must be the reason why. That's a rather illogical conclusion to make (like pretty much every single aspect of religion).
No, our mental ability is mostly dependant on the number of connections between neurones in our brain. These are stimulated to connected at an early age by doing things such as reading. Things as specific as thinking "scientifically" are not pre-determined at all, scientific thought is purely a man made constraint.
Most people can become anything, if they were just taught to think correctly. Take Dawkins for example, he was a Christian as a child, and he believed in creation. That was until he was told otherwise, he then used the scientific way of thinking he had been taught to help him make his decision.
Last edited:
Your closed minded then. To be a "proper" Christian as you put it you just need follow Christ.
Oh I agree. But it isn't hard to look up on the web, where for example the story of Joseph is.
Despite the large number of serious responses so far. Is it windy up there on your high horse?
True, I did post that before getting round to reading the whole thread. It was just some general advice though that it is best not to ask for serious advice on religion on here, you will mostly get laughed at.
Definitely I agree. I generally find on the internet though that Atheists are more closed minded and come across very arrogant. That is certainly the case on these forums. Or people thinking that because there agnostic that they are logically superior and everyone else is a fool. I do not think that you are closed minded though
That's fair enough. But there is many different theories on this kind of thing, and none of them are particularly stronger than the next. People can have stronger parts of there brain that process certain things. So for example people can have better reactions if there motor cortex has more neuron connections. But things as specific as thinking in line with the ""scientific method"" naturally without even being taught it is just not the case.
Last edited:
I would use your Dawkins example and reverse it. He was taught christianity as a child but his natural ability for clear, calculated logical thought meant that as he became less dependant on his childhood power figures and of course, as respected peers introduced him to the ideas and people of science, his thought processes wandered away from the fantastical and more into reality. Dawkins was probably an inquisitive child, who, while unable to challenge the "truths" offered by his elders most probably always had some doubt in his mind. His later exposure to people who presented life in a more scientific manner almost certainly switched on a lightbulb that had lay dorment in his mind for quite a while, and started to connect the dots.
I am not saying that one person is born to be a scientist and another to be a believer in a higher power, if I remember my argument started as I made the statement that I believe the true definition of either to be mutually exclusive, and I still do. However, I maintain that the way that some people think is more likely to lead them to the conclusion that what we see and do and experience is probably not due to the intervention of some higher power we cannot even comprehend.
The blind statement that every single person when born has the chance to form the same neural patterns and pathways as any other person is frankly ludicrous and disproven by medical science! Some people for example have a naturally higher activity in one side of hte brain comapred to the other. Certainly their surroundings and teachers and experiences etc will increase this activity, but the bias was already there.
I think it's worth noting that I am talking about very subtle nuances here. You may have a priest who thinks scientifically but their life experiences never nurture their scientific way of thinking to the point where they convince themselves enough that the idea of a God simply cannot fit with reality, similarly you will find many people who put great personal faith in the scientific process yet have never been stimulated by their environment into considering that the teachings of their elders as a youth rgarding God were probably wrong, so they proffess a blind faith while practicing a very transparent practice known as science to achieve other goals.
I maintain however that the physical and chemical make-up of some peoples minds will mean they are more likely to think in a scientific manner than others.
