Is It Child Abuse?

I may not like it and I it may make me cringe, but no, it is not a form of (mental) child abuse.

Happy Fourth of July!

It is a parent’s right to teach their children their religion. But in this situation, taking your child into public to proselytize is wrong. Not only is she putting the child in the way of possible physical danger (since some people are crazy) she is putting her child in the position to be ridiculed and ostracized. Ridicule can be damaging to the social skills and mental health of any child of that age, but especially so to a girl who is already under social pressure to look and act a certain way. In this case, this religious behavior is child abuse.

I think if you threaten children with eternal torture in hell, that’s child abuse. But while I disagree that there is a Jesus who loves everybody, I don’t think that teaching them about that is abuse. So some denominations would fit and some wouldn’t. Sharing your opinion with willing listeners at the mall is hardly abuse. Again, I don’t agree with it, but the girl is learning to stand up for her beliefs. As she gets older and encounters different people with different arguments, it will teach her to think for herself, something she is probably not getting at home.

I think it’s dangerous to label general religious teachings “abuse”, because it’s part of one’s family and culture. They think what atheists do in NOT teaching children about religion is abuse as well. Then it just gets into a finger pointing match that leads to nowhere.

Parents need to teach their children all sorts of things to make it in the world, from how to stay clean and use a toilet, to how to make a living(in joint responsibility with government and or society at large). To decide what is irresponsible educating and what is needed depends on the accurate appreciation of what reality really is. Determining that in a world rife with propaganda and nonsense is a big challenge.

I do think myth educating is abuse, as is political indoctrination, but wonder how any of us can be sure we know enough to know the real from the mistaken and harmful. My brother and his wife seem to have ‘educated’ their sons in the ‘science of creation’ and the beliefs of their church. I think that was abuse and condemn them for it, but what am I to do about such abuse, make it illegal? Outlawing beliefs is what religious and political totalists do with horrific results.

Teaching your child about your personal philosophy/beliefs in life is hardly child abuse. Religious people do it just as I, an atheist/humanist, do it. True life lessons are taught through our actions and what our children observe.

I see it as a silly little trick. The fact is adults are kinder towards children than towards adults (on the average, I believe). If an adult stranger approaches me to talk, I’ll be on my guard. If it’s a kid, my reaction would be like “Oh, the little one wants to say something to me. I wonder what it is…”

Stupid little trick!

Abuse is a very strong word, and care must be done to make sure it’s not being watered down to suit your agenda.

A parent teaching their children is one thing, but a parent making their children follow the parent’s beliefs to the point of making them do proselytization work is pretty awkward.

I really disagree with this idea that teaching your child what you believe is abusive just because someone else disagrees with it. Christians would have just as much justification (if not more) to suggest that not teaching children of atheists about Jesus is abusive. And forget existential philosophy, what about political beliefs? Is it abusive for me to teach my kids Democratic ideals? Republican ideals?

No. Thought and education are not criminal unless that education specifically assaults the child’s sense of self worth and results in emotional harm. Religious guilt, however misplaced, is not psychological harm in and of itself. There is enough real abuse in the world. We don’t need to invent it because something makes us uncomfortable.

What does Richard Wade think, as the resident family counselor?

I have to put myself in the position of the child. Imagine you’re that child, and 20 years from now, when you’re an adult, you view this footage for the first time. Would you feel that you’d been exploited? Would you feel that you had been made an instrument in advocacy of beliefs that you were too young to understand? And would you wish your parents would have let you just be a kid and not a propaganda tool? For me, the answer to all three questions is a resounding “YES.” So, yeah, in that sense, I’d feel that I’d been abused.

Abuse comes in many guises. This is a far cry from putting cigarettes out on the kid, or locking her in the basement—but it’s still exploitation.

Love the use of a Sinner’s Prayer. I thought works and rituals didn’t get you into heaven. Glad I was wrong. I’m saying the? magic words right now!

Atheists can say whatever they want at the mall too. Lighten up!

I might get jumped on this but what if the difference between this and the people pushing an atheist world view? Lying to children doesn’t make it abuse and what would you expect from the children? They are doing what pleases the adult they are with. If we use this as an example of child abuse,, can I sue my parents for it? Quit worrying about what parents teach their kids, unless the kids are shut off from real life, instead work with those that are willing to work with others for what is best for all. I am really tired of hearing how teaching and pushing religion is child abuse. I think religion is an easy area to hide from life but it isn’t child abuse. What is the difference from you calling it child abuse and christians calling atheist evil?

I like reading this blog but it seems that many forget that their view isn’t the only one that matters. Even when something harms others it doesn’t make it abuse. Hell I got my ass beat several times by my father and my principle neither do I see as abuse. It was their attempt at guiding me to a life that was correct. Did those ass beating really effect my life? I don’t think that they did. Hell many times I had a choice between an ass beating to a suspension and guess which I took? What we need to focus on is education from outside the family and church.

Quit worrying about what parents teach their kids, unless the kids are shut off from real life

Baconsbud, the fact is that many of these children are shut off from real life. There are many that are home schooled or attend religious private schools. Even those that attend public school have their social lives extremely restricted by their parents. Plus, by the time they reach the material in class, they are already indoctrinated to reject anything that disagrees with their parents’ worldview.

If, in fact, teaching children about a concept of hell (while also teaching them there is a way to escape such a fate) is “worse than physical child abuse,” then where is the campaign to remove children from such an environment and punish the parents? If Dawkins is not willing to start such a campaign, then the use of the term is mere rhetoric.

Not for me, I am all for removing children from those parents. If it can be proven that they really earnestly believe in Hell and the Devil, and aren’t just coffee table Christians, then they are delusional and incapable of making rational decisions in child-rearing.

Baconsbud Says:

I might get jumped on this but what if the difference between this and the people pushing an atheist world view?

An atheist world view makes sense and fosters critical thinking. Indoctrinating a child into a cult before he has the ability to make important life decisions is a moral crime, and should be a legal one.

Lying to children doesn’t make it abuse and what would you expect from the children? They are doing what pleases the adult they are with. If we use this as an example of child abuse,, can I sue my parents for it? Quit worrying about what parents teach their kids, unless the kids are shut off from real life, instead work with those that are willing to work with others for what is best for all. I am really tired of hearing how teaching and pushing religion is child abuse. I think religion is an easy area to hide from life but it isn’t child abuse. What is the difference from you calling it child abuse and christians calling atheist evil?

Because one is true and the other isn’t.

I like reading this blog but it seems that many forget that their view isn’t the only one that matters.

I think you’re forgetting that the actual point has to have merit, before we can take it seriously. It’s like global warming proponents vs. global warming deniers. Both sides attack the other, but the global warming deniers don’t have a case, so fuck them.

Even when something harms others it doesn’t make it abuse. Hell I got my ass beat several times by my father and my principle neither do I see as abuse. It was their attempt at guiding me to a life that was correct. Did those ass beating really effect my life? I don’t think that they did.

You’re lucky.

For all you know, it was the kid’s idea to take the parent. Did you see Jesus Camp? When I was a kid, I was the one who got my parents to return to church. You have to be trained in dogma so that you can take your place in the church. Thus, as kids, we were encouraged to take turns leading prayers. I could have been Marjoe Gortner. Without overt indoctrination, you have nothing to rebel against. Unfortunately, it frequently sticks, but if you count the number of former church-goers in a roomful of atheists, you’ll find a lot.

Many commenters are saying it’s not wrong to teach kids their parents beliefs, but that’s not what’s going on here. No one is saying that parents should tell children what they believe. Indoctrination isn’t education, they’re not teaching their kids. It’s child abuse to label your children Christian (or whatever), as if that’s an inherent trait, and then force and pressure them to take on irrational beliefs. I doubt many people would defend the same people acting like this about political allegiance or ideology. Children should be free to grow up and decide for themselves.

I have no idea how people can defend indoctrination but then turn around and say involving children in chanting at a protest is some sort of child abuse. Getting children to say things is a form of child abuse? You cannot be serious. Obviously I think proselytizing is wrong because it includes indoctrination, and some protests are wrong in sentiment, but that doesn’t make it child abuse.

Legal terms are borrowed from common language, and vice versa, are used differently. “Fraud” is a term often used in a different way than the more precise legal definition. It only seems to be a problem when Richard Dawkins uses these words, e.g. “delusion”, do people who irrationally hate him whine about it being a medical term even though they know full well it’s had a long history before the official medical definition existed. Religious indoctrination, labelling of children, is abuse of children, a.k.a child abuse.

For better or for worse, I feel a parent has the right to raise their own child how they see fit. In principle, it is the same as our personal freedom to make mistakes, poor decisions, and commit crimes. We just need to be prepared to accept the consequences of those decisions.
I actually wonder that should my 3 year old son be orphaned and then adopted by a Christian family, would he display the same degree of stubornness as his biological parents?

I voted yes. Any belief that tells you you will be be tortured for all of eternity is mental child abuse. Even if the child brought the parent out, the child would have to have it from somewhere, no? In the end the child is still driven by the “fact” that everyone will be tortured for all of eternity if the child doesn’t go out and do this.

Also, I remember very clearly all the nightmares I had as a child since I “knew” the whole world was going to hell.

For everyone saying it isn’t child abuse, lets make this different. The parents love bacon. The child doesn’t. The parents tell the kid if they don’t eat the bacon, the kid’s skin will boil off and his insides will spill out. It will do this again, and again, and again, till the end of time. So the child eats the bacon. Then the kid learns that his friend doesn’t eat bacon, and he is horrified because he knows his friend’s skin is going to boil off and her insides are going to fall out – forever.

Would you call that child abuse? Or do you think there is no mental pain from it?

For me, the answer is clear. Child abuse? You bet your ass it is.

Child: “Where do you die?”

Me: “You don’t, you stay where you expired”

I think the real bad part is not parents raising their children to believe one way or another, but raising them to “push” those views on random people in public. That’s the offensive part for me.

Bingo.

In the video, we have a child interrogating an adult about that adult’s mortality. I mean, wow. The child (following the script given to her) asks the adult “Do you know where you’ll go when you die?” Are you kidding me? You don’t even know where babies come from, and you’re asking me about my mortality? Puh-leese.

A four year old once informed me that we (kids and husband and I) weren’t going to heaven. The whole thing was offensive and disturbing, precisely because the mother had no problem with her child relaying this message and had clearly coached her child in the matter. Stuff like this may not be take-the-children-away type of child abuse, but I completely agree that it IS abuse, and I feel immeasurably sorry for a child who is a)put through something like this and b)has such distorted views planted in their brains in the first place.

I am reluctant to label this as child abuse, even if I vehemently disagree. This woman truly believes in what she is teaching her child and while we know better and disagree, I don’t think it is appropriate to say it’s abuse. If the child is loved, clothed and fed, we can only hope that in the future she discovers religion is a hoax.

I always say that atheism is the new enlightenment and just like past enlightenments, some people are born to the already enlightened, some figure it out despite their upraising, and some never get it. Eventually, the archaic notions die out with the unenlightened.

I went against my usual stance and voted yes but hesitated only because you linked it with Dawkins’ bullshit when they are two entirely different things.

We can’t have it two ways. We can either have religious freedom or charge parents with child abuse for teaching the wrong religious belief. Let me give you a clue, people (are you listening, Mr. Dawkins) if you do away with religious freedom so you can be sick enough to remove children from a loving home due not believing the right thing, the right thing ain’t gonna be the opinion of the minority.

Let me repeat that loud and clear because it truly astounds that so many members of a religious minority who claim they deal with reality instead of pie in the sky do not get an obvious fact of life:

IF CHILDREN ARE REMOVED FOR BEING TAUGHT THE “WRONG” RELIGIOUS BELIEF, IT AIN’T GONNA BE THE BELIEFS OF ONLY 15% OF THE POPULATION THAT IS ACCEPTABLE IN CHILD REARING AND IT AIN’T GONNA BE THE KIDS RAISED WITH HELL FIRE AND BRIMSTONE THAT ARE STOLEN FROM THEIR LOVING PARENTS!!!

Did you get that bit of common sense through your thick skulls?

Why in hell are a religous minority so hell bent against religous freedom? Please explain that one to me. It’s pretty fucking stupid.

Now, as to why I voted, yes: In this case, the mother has gone beyond teaching Buybull stories and Jesus loves you but will burn you in hell if you don’t do as he says to actually exploiting her child and doing the direct opposite of normal families. Instead of teaching her child to not talk to strangers, she’s not only forcing (or at least coercing) her child to talk to strangers, she’s actually making her do so in a confrontational manner. In other words, she is endangering her child.

I have never seen this happen before. The closest I’ve come is having two teenagers knock on my door to spread the word of god while their lazy-assed parents sat parked in their van outside the apartment complex. (And, yes, that too was child abuse very definitely endangering the kids; I called the cops.)

I think I’d have lost my cool if I had been that young woman in the video who you could tell was humoring them because she was thrown by it. So thanks for the heads up that this is happening. Forewarned is forearmed. I think I’d smile sweetly at the child and say something like why, honey child, it’s nice of you to be worried about me but you needn’t be. Those things aren’t real you know. They’re fairy tales just like Cinderella and Snow White. So thank you, darling, but I’m fine.

At least this would have departed radically from prepared script (you can bet there are things she’s taught to say if person approached grows angry) and the kid would have nowhere to go until next time when they’d know of the possibility from me but at least the kid would see a better side and her mother probably would have grown angry. Let her look bad in her kid’s eyes. The asshole exploiting her child this way.

I chose “other” because the issue is too complicated for a “yes” or “no” answer from me. In some ways, I think it’s moot, because whether we involve the loaded term “abuse” or not, there’s no way we will (or could) stop religious parents from indoctrinating their children, even if we tried to limit it in a few ways.

I think it’s cruel to put children in a situation where, by the time they reach an age where they’re able to reason for themselves, they might be so psychologically conditioned that they have little/no choice in their adult beliefs. I think people who haven’t seen such scenarios up-close and personal over a long period routinely underestimate the power of such intense indoctrination. I wish it didn’t happen. But I don’t have any easy answers. More thoughts on the whole thing here, on the forums.

@Muggle

I have never seen this happen before. The closest I’ve come is having two teenagers knock on my door to spread the word of god while their lazy-assed parents sat parked in their van outside the apartment complex. (And, yes, that too was child abuse very definitely endangering the kids; I called the cops.)

How, pray tell, is going door-to-door endangering the kids? How the hell is this child abuse?

As a child and teen, I’ve gone door-to-door for various school fundraisers alone or with school friends (no adults). I was also raped by an older cousin when I was eight. To quote Jules, “[This] ain’t the same fuckin’ ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain’t even the same fuckin’ sport.”

It pisses me off to no end when over-protective types label everything as, “abuse.”

Wow…that’s a little over the top. I’m not an atheist but I’m not a devout Christian either As for this being child abuse I would have to flatly say “no.” The child’s welfare isn’t be jeopardized by what she’s doing. However, cornering people in the mall and basically trying to guilt them into religion by using a little girl as the mouthpiece is rather unorthodox…and I’m toning that down. I’ve always hated being approached by individuals asking me if I’ve been “saved” and whatever other rhetoric they choose to use. But this…the little girl “interviewing” people…Okay that’s just wrong. Religion is a personal choice and should be a decision made on a personal level…not peddled to you at the mall. Not to mention the patronizing tone that always comes with the message….GRRRRR

She’s also just straight up using her child. I think it would be much harder for some people, like this mom in the video, to tell the women to fuck off when the religious woman’s child is right there. And even harder to tell them to fuck off when it’s the child herself giving the religious talk.

Such a load of crap. I say it’s child abuse because, yeah, children are sponges and you can teach them anything at that age and they’ll go with it. But it’s one thing to teach them math and grammar and another completely to teach them something that puts everyone in a neat “us” and “them” category and to teach them something that will more than likely cause them alot of emotional grief in their life, whether they sty religious throughout it or not.

But you’d never be able to get parents to stop doing this. Nor do people see the extent the childhood brainwashing into religion hurts a person throughout their whole lives since most people in America were taken to Sunday school as children. But Sunday school every Sunday is one thing, this is something COMPLETELY different. I feel for that child. :\

darknomad,

Religion is a personal choice and should be a decision made on a personal level…not peddled to you at the mall.

I think people whining about “religious freedom” should read this. Religion should be a personal choice, made on a personal level. That’s religious freedom, and children deserve religious freedom as much as their parents.

Daniel,

I don’t think she’s abusing her child though, at least not by passing down her beliefs. Its really abuse NOT to pass down one’s beliefs.

Pretty much all beliefs, religious or political, have serious consequences for not following them.

I was apparently abused because my parents didn’t dictate what I believe, there was no punishment or coercion for not believing what they did.

They believe those beliefs have serious consequences for not following them. Back in reality it matters whether things are true.

Citizen Z,

think it’s more accurate to call it “brainwashing”, and that’s not only because of the legal implications of describing it as child abuse.

I’m interested in your perspective on how “brainwashing” is not a form of mistreatment.

I’m interested in your perspective on how “brainwashing” is not a form of mistreatment.

It is a form of mistreatment, that’s why I think “brainwashing” should be used. I you say “child abuse”, all of a sudden people are talking about having kids being taken from their families because the parents take them to church.

That’s what we do when children get abused, we call the police. But what about brainwashing? I’d think everyone would agree that brainwashing is bad, but there’s not much the police can do about it. Describing it as brainwashing has two particular advantages: 1) it’s more accurate. Abuse can cover a wider variety of mistreatment. We all have a general sense of what brainwashing is, and it would be harder to muddle the issue with comparisons to beatings, etc. 2) How are they going to deny it?

Citizen Z,

I thought you were saying it wasn’t a form of abuse, but I see what you meant now, I agree that brainwashing is more accurate. It seems people are ignorant, and don’t understand what “abuse” means, they only associate it with news media that only reports the worst forms of abuse. I think the term “brainwashing” could have the same problem, as people will associate it with The Manchurian Candidate, A Clockwork Orange, or Nineteen Eight Four. I don’t think religious societies sees what it does as brainwashing, Christians often claim they chose to be Christian. Society is in denial, there needs to be some consciousness raising.

Give me your fucking Bible and I’ll destroy everything you believe, little girl.

@Robert: Are you kidding me? An atheist saying “There’s no god child, now eat your vegetables???”. Has to be a joke, right?

The mother didn’t simply pass her beliefs down to her child; she’s using the child to proselytize. THAT is what constitutes child abuse in my book.

Robert,

I am certain that Atheist parents do the same thing everytime the subject of God comes up- “There is no God child, now eat your vegetables”.

You are certain when you are ignorant, you must be a Christian. Most atheists, “weak” atheists, I have met do not claim to know there is no God, or gods, they simply claim they do not believe, that doesn’t mean they claim to believe there is not. You probably don’t know any atheist parents. Atheism is not a belief system, it’s not a belief, it’s not a tradition, it has no doctrine, no prophets, no authorities. Atheism is a lack of belief.

Anyway, that’s not even the issue, how can you think that. Telling children there is or isn’t a God is not the issue, it’s wrong, but not child abuse. Parents telling children what the parent believe is fine. Parents telling children what they the children believe is not fine. If atheists raised children in the same way it would be child abuse. Telling their children they are “strong” atheists, therefore they believe that there are no gods, deciding for them who they are and what they believe long before they can evaluate for themselves. Punishing and threatening them for believing there are gods.

Telling children that non-believers will be tortured for eternity is child abuse for the same reason, and another reason, because on top of the attempt to control others actions with fairy tales that they have no evidence or reason to believe, is the fact that telling children that their non-believing friends will be tortured for eternity is emotionally traumatic and unpleasant. Well we’re on the subject telling a teenager that if they masturbate they’ll turn blind or become mentally ill is also cruel, although I think these myths have become unpopular.

We obviously have a different belief system and understanding about what it means to teach a child about the Christian faith. Your misconceptions about that are as bad as you say mine are with the “eat your vegetables” comment.

The Christian faith is far more then Hell. And growing up in a Christian household I can tell you that the overall theme was love, grace and forgiveness. Not fire and brimstone.

All of you are are arrogantly saying that that belief is just wrong- If your child came to you and said he or she was a Christian, would you try to change their mind or would you accept that as their belief system?

It is silly to call this child abuse. I wonder how many people in this thread have actually encountered or experienced abuse. This is only a very small picture of what is going on in this families life. I think it is beyond judgmental to make the assumptions that are being cast here about a family none of us know anything about.

Robert,

All of you are are arrogantly saying that that belief is just wrong- If your child came to you and said he or she was a Christian, would you try to change their mind or would you accept that as their belief system?

It’s not arrogant, it’s reality, deal with it.

If someone disagrees with you, it’s reasonable to try to persuade them with reasoned argument. Give children the information, and tools such as language and logic, and let them decide when they’re capable of comprehending these questions. It’s not about raising atheists, it’s about raising freethinkers who decide for themselves.

We hear of religious parents reacting with anger, shaming, coercion, and manipulation to children who do not believe. They label them from birth, with expectations of belief. Christian parents raise their children to be Christians. Telling them what doctrine they should and have to believe.

Aj,

Its not my reality. So i have nothing to “deal with”. But when you profess to allow “free thinking” then to say all other thoughts but your own are wrong, it is arrogance or hypocrisy pure and simple.

Frankly, I think you are incorrect and would hope that you believed, but that is your free will and your right.

But you didn’t answer the question. If your child grew up to be a Christian would you consider it a mental illness or would you be open to allow your child to think for him or herself.

Certain parents behaving badly when their child takes a different path is not a condemnation of the Christian belief. I wonder if you would feel the same way about an Atheist parent who manipulates, degrades, abuses or otherwise mistreats one of their children who become Christian. Or are they just trying to show them the truth as you see it?

Robert,

Its not my reality. So i have nothing to “deal with”. But when you profess to allow “free thinking” then to say all other thoughts but your own are wrong, it is arrogance or hypocrisy pure and simple.

Freethinking is using reason and evidence, science and logic, and rejecting tradition, authority, or dogma. Again, you are completely ignorant of what freethinking is, yet you decide to tell me what it is. I don’t say all other thoughts are wrong, I say beliefs that are based on authority and not based on science or logic are wrong. You don’t have your own independent reality to the rest of us.

But you didn’t answer the question. If your child grew up to be a Christian would you consider it a mental illness or would you be open to allow your child to think for him or herself.

I clearly did answer your question. Of course I would allow my hypothetical child to think for themselves, as was afforded to me, as I hope they will afford to their children.

Certain parents behaving badly when their child takes a different path is not a condemnation of the Christian belief. I wonder if you would feel the same way about an Atheist parent who manipulates, degrades, abuses or otherwise mistreats one of their children who become Christian. Or are they just trying to show them the truth as you see it?

Earlier in these very comments I did say if an atheist did the same it would be child abuse. Labelling children, deciding for them, expecting them to subscribe to the parent’s beliefs is child abuse. The bad behaviour flows naturally from thinking you can do this.

I think it is a condemnation of Christian belief. This is exactly how God treats humans in the Bible. What is the first commandment? What does God do to people who disagree? Where does Jesus say people will go who disagree? What happens to people on judgement day? What crime does Jesus say will not be forgiven?

Robert,

Your “condemnation” the Christian faith is only half the story. God in his grace gave all of his children the path to avoid eternal damnation. If they choose to not believe and refuse to take that gift of grace then there are consequences. Knowing the outcome of non belief ahead of time and choosing not to do so, then facing the consequences is not unfair or unjust.

How do you know? What evidence or reason can you give me to believe your nonsense? By what logic should I believe your religious text over anyone else’s? If God decided to impart this knowledge to people the way you suggest, then its a cruel and perverted god. For any reasonable person, using their natural wits, would justifiably not believe. Your God has exactly the same attitude as the parents we’re talking about.

Robert,

If you really sincerely want to get into a discussion about the authority for the Bible

Go on…

Drew, I should probably mention that this was just after some kid doing just that — going door to door selling candy to raise funds for school — got yanked inside an apartment door (not in my complex but locally) and raped and murdered. Still wondering how it’s endangering the child?

And they had these girls really dolled up all ’50’s style, “chantilly lace and a pretty face and a ponytail hanging down.” Cops couldn’t do anything but talk to them and warn them but they did. Doubt it mattered because the kids obviously didn’t to the fucktards.

Aj,

I will take you on your word that you are open to a sincere discussion of beliefs and Bible authority. You start however with the assumption that only non reasonable people believe in god and the bible so i am hopeful that that bias doesn’t taint our conversation.

I would venture to say that the bible has been the most debated and studied ancient text over the last several thousand years. it has stood the test of time and the more discoveries we make the more its truth is revealed.

Please understand that I do not believe that the Bible is a scientific text, nor was it intended to be. for example, I do not believe that the creation narrative is to be taken literally. But it is an explanation of God’s involvement in creation for the people to whom it is written in a language they could understand.

Have you ever read or studied the Bible? It has a remarkable history. It was written over thousands of years, by various authors. At its core it is the story of a people and God’s involvement in their life while at the same time it explains and describes our human nature, God’s nature and his plan for our salvation.

The authenticity of the bible as far as its accuracy as a historical text has been proven over the years in most respects through archeology. For example, just recently, a stone fragment was found confirming that King David, who for a time was thought to be a legend, actually existed. It was from a non biblical source written by an Armenian king.

There are also non biblical accounts of Jesus’ life and death contemporary with his time. Ancient historians and even Roman documents mention him.

Further, discoveries of ancient documents reveal that the version of the Bible we have today is remarkably accurate to that which existed thousands of years ago.

This is just a little bit of info. This could go on and on. If you have specific questions let me know.

Aj,

Time right now will only allow me to answer some of your questions. One is your question about the time of the writing of the Bible. The historical facts depicted in the Bible show that it was written over thousands of years. The early battles and enslavement in Egypt, some of which have been verified through archeology, have been dated. These together with early manuscripts can tell us when some of the early books were written. The New Testament began to be written in around 50 CE, many years after the last of the Old Testament. It is believed that the last portion of the New Testament was written about 100 CE or maybe a little later. So the span from the new to old testament is thousands of years.

I will also answer your last question- One of the common complaints against the bible is the idea of how do we know that the bible we have now is even accurate to the ancient writings that it purports to be. I was anticipating that argument with my comment. But more importantly, i think that it is a safe assumption that if a person writes that he was an eyewitness to an event, then spreads that story around to the people of his day when they can test his claims and after that is done those claims survive the inquiry and remain intact thousands of years later after they have had multiple opportunities to be revised and changed, that lends to the credibility of the original story. As far as the New Testament is concerned the Gospels and Acts and the letters from Paul were written fairly close to contemporaneous with the events they depict. The people of the day determined they were accurate and others that were not were discarded so that a consensus was built for their accuracy.

Unfortunately, most of the time the Bible is put to a much more critical analysis by skeptics then they do other ancient writings. So what is accepted for secular writings as to their veracity is not accepted for Biblical writings. when the same standards are used, the Bible stands up very well.

And no i don’t take challenges and respectful analysis personally.

If a white power skinhead Nazi was teaching her kids that black people are “niggers” and should be lynched, and having their child stand in the mall happily telling others about how blacks should be attached to car bumpers by a rope, would we be debating whether that is wrong? Of course not, we would call child services.

We would? Last I checked, white power skinhead Nazis have rights, too. The state can’t come in and take their children away simply because they have unpopular beliefs. I’m sure all of us find the brainwashing repugnant, but the government has no right to interfere. Fred Phelps of “God Hates Fags” fame involves little children in his protests. Their families haven’t lost custody of them. Sad, yes, but once you start going after the unpopular people, it’s a slippery slope. You should realize that we’re also on the unpopular list.

How long before kids are being forcibly removed from their homes because of their parent’s beliefs? It’s already happening in the UK, and before long it will be happening in the U.S. as well.

It’s already happening in the UK? Perhaps you could link to the case or cases you’re talking about. Not doubting your story, but I have never heard of anything like this.

Aj,

Actually there is growing evidence of the enslavement in Egypt. there is even evidence of Joesph being in Egypt and mentions of Yahweh in Egyptian artifacts.

Not only are places mentioned the Bible being confirmed through secular sources, but also events that take place.

But to the idea of eyewitnesses, here is my point. The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to what they saw. They were circulated at a time when others who were there could confirm them. The fact that they were confirmed as being accurate by those at the time does lend to its credibility. Especially since there is evidence of other documents that were rejected.

Let me give you another thought- There is ample evidence that some of the early church leaders, including those who claimed they were eyewitnesses to the events in Jesus’ life were martyred. They were not killed for something they simply believed, they were killed for what they saw. Do you think that they would have done that for what they knew to be a lie?
That is different from those today who kill themselves for their faith. These were contemporaries who were preaching what they saw. I doubt they would have done that if they were preaching what they knew was a lie.

Aj,

There are multiple sources for the confirmation of the jewish people in Egypt and their escape. Its really not just my word for it. A good source for this is a book, Is the Bible True, by Jeffery Sheler.

But regardless, if you do ever agree that the events as depicted in the Bible occurred and have been verified, would simply disregard God’s involvement on those events as described by the writers? If so, then you would be saying, yes the Bible is true, but I refuse to believe it.

My point on eyewitnesses is simply that the Bible and the Gospels are some of the most investigated books and writings in History. Not only recently, but at the time they were written. What we have now is the books and writings of eyewitnesses that stood up to the test at the time they were written and since then. You may discount that evidence, but I believe that it is compelling.

As for your last question, no I don’t find it unacceptable. Because that same evidence shows me that through the love and Grace of that same God, he has provided a path, through faith alone, to not only avoid eternal separation from him, but to becomes heirs with him in his kingdom. Even though we have done nothing to warrant it. It is being saved by grace through faith that is the beautiful promise of the gospel. That is something that no other religion can offer.

Aj,

i do understand. When evidence outside the Bible confirms the events described in the Bible, the Bible is confirmed. That has happened countless times. To me this is evidence that the Bible is accurate. The evidence stacks up for the Old and the New Testament. You can choose not to believe it, but i would venture to say that there is nothing that would make you believe.

If you don’t believe in God then you certainly don’t believe in eternity, in Heaven or Hell, so why do you consider my belief sadistic. I am very satisfied and convinced that the evidence of God is more then enough for people to believe if they choose to do so. You have apparently studied and come to conclusion that you don’t believe, so if I am correct and you spend eternity in hell, would you think that was fair?

As for my history, yes i was raised a Christian, fell away for a number of years and came back on my own after much study and research.

Aj,

Please excuse the delay in responding. I was out of town.

We have only scratched the surface of why I believe the Bible is true. The Bible was not intended to simply be a history text, although it is that. It is clearly the description of God’s work with his people, his plan for how we should live our lives, a testament to him and his glory and his plan for salvation. I bring up the archeological evidence to show that the events and history of the Bible is proving to be accurate. I understand that this can only take you so far. But it does show that the biblical writers, long taken as inaccurate and wrong by skeptics, are being proven to be correct in their description of events and history. That is clearly a starting point to understand and confirm the other non strictly historical claims made in the Bible.

It cannot be compared to the or the Koran Iliad. The Iliad, who we don’t even really know who wrote it was never intended to be an accurate description of the history of a people. It was and has always been known to simply be a poem. As for the Koran, the archeological evidence simply doesn’t add up as it does for the Bible.

I understand that at some point it comes down to faith. And that is where the choice to believe plays a part. The Bible says that God has revealed himself to all. You have stated that you have read the Bible, but not studied it in depth. You are clearly educated and very bright. We simply see the same evidence and reach a different conclusion. But I do disagree with your assumption that you can’t choose what you belief in. Let me give you an example- everytime you get on a plane you choose to believe that it is properly maintained, properly fueled, and being flown by a trained pilot. You don’t have any direct evidence of any of those facts, yet, by boarding the plane you are choosing to believe that they are true. That is faith.

You are looking at the evidence of God, not only what you and i have discussed but what you have lived and studied over your lifetime and have reached the conclusion that for you the evidence just isn’t enough. That is your choice. That is your free will. I’m not judging you for that but I do find it insulting that you dismiss the belief of millions of people and claim that none of them are reasonable simply because you disagree with them.

And again, I wonder why you are worried about eternity. I see alot of people on this board who talk about how horrible or unfair it that we believe their is a Hell. If you have no belief in God, you can’t believe in a soul and you must believe that you simply die and that is it, there is no more. If that is so, then why worry about eternity or how unfair it seems that because you do not believe that you will not go to Heaven?

Aj,

This post is getting on to find on the page so we will have to continue this discussion elsewhere.
But I will ask you- do you think Einstein was a reasonable person? How about Sir Issac Newton? Or Sir Francis Bacon? All of these gentlemen believed in God. All of them had faith.

Like I have said, I have presented what I believe to be evidence of the authenticity of the Bible. I have provided you a glimpse of the archeological evidence. And provided a book for you to study more if you would like. There is another one called “The Evidence calls for a Verdict” by McDowell.

But in the end, it does came down to faith. And what you call trust I call faith. And i stand by my position that you can choose to believe or not You can choose to accept that some parts of the Bible are true and others are not. You can choose to reject the notion that your conscience and an innate sense of right and wrong comes from something other then yourself. I can look at the universe just like Einstein and know that it was created and just didn’t happen by random acts of chemistry. I see God in the creation. You can choose not to.

Aj, I would venture to say that you have faith in some things, just not in God. You can call it what you like, but the end result is you believe things you don’t know and that is faith.

As for eternity, Christians are not content in the notion that non believers are going to hell. That is why we have the great commission to spread the Gospel.

I have enjoyed our conversation. God bless you and yours.

Aj,

“For any reasonable person, using their natural wits, would justifiably not believe.”

That is your quote from several posts above. It tells me that you contend that reasonable people would not believe. when I say that it comes down to faith, I am saying that there are some things we don’t know for sure, but that there is enough evidence to accept the unknown. Not unlike those who believe that most of the universe is made up of antimatter- we don’t know what it is yet, but we know its there. that takes a leap of faith based upon the evidence at hand.

If you contend that you don’t have faith, what would be your definition of faith?

Finally, Let me quote from Einstein-

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”5

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”6

Einstein on God and the Bible:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Einstein on Judaism:

For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.

Robert,

I do not want to continue with the question of Einstein’s beliefs. I think his quote admiring Spinoza’s philosophy is as clear a view you will get to his idea of the universe, as a naturalistic pantheistic. He certainly did not claim to believe or know of a any sort of god, deistic or otherwise. He used the word “God” as a metaphor often, as does the atheist Stephen Hawking. One last quote:

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

The Big Bang does not propose a starting point for “the universe” in a philosophical sense, which covers more than time. The Big Bang is concerned with the beginning of time, the explosion of matter, and the expansion of space. Not much is known about the early universe, and there are many competing theories. The Big Bang is often mistaken for being a starting point for the universe, but this is not true. At the very beginning of the proposed Big Bang, there is matter, and the Big Bang is not about where that matter comes from.

There’s far too many problems with your analogy. Firstly, and most importantly, you have given no evidence. Secondly we are led to believe God created hell, or at least allows it to exist. Thirdly, we non-believers don’t freely go to hell in the scenario in the Bible, we are forced to go there by God. For your analogy to be honest you would have to change it to: An invisible man tells a child to tell another child that if they don’t believe in him at some later date he’ll grab his hand and stick it in a fire. The child doesn’t believe the other child, and at some later date the invisible man grabs his hand and sticks it in the fire.

I do not know what evidence it would take. I cannot propose evidence that may appear for something I do not understand. I do not know whether or how dark matter will be explained through observation, let alone gods. We have no experience of anything related to a creator god. An unambiguous message in the laws that govern would be suitable I guess, to support that an intelligence created the universe. I think this is what Einstein was getting at about the library, he was saying even if there was a god we don’t know enough yet to say whether one exists or not, that’s why he was comfortable with the “agnostic” label.