What to do about the atheist husband?

[rick43235]

As far as changing the rules…when we married I don’t think either of us expected that the other wouldn’t change. For goodness sake, why would anyone expect that you could spend your WHOLE LIFE with a person and they wouldn’t change one bit?

I’ve heard it said that a woman gets married thinking that she can change her husband, and a man gets married thinking his wife will never change. Maybe you have some of that dynamic is going on here.

Yes, that’s the balance I am trying to find. When does it change from inviting to nagging? And I do view ANY time he’s willing to go to Mass as a positive, and I want to be very clear here - my husband ROCKS. Seriously. But, then again, I don’t want to STOP asking him questions and inviting him to things - these are things that are on my heart, and the only thing WORSE would be for me to say something like ‘Well, I assumed you wouldn’t be interested in going to this Bible study with me, so I’m dropping the kids off at my mom’s and I’ll be back in two hours’ I don’t think that’s very nice either. So, I agree with what you’re saying and THAT is the balance I am trying to find. I want to be loving and supportive and encouraging, but not over bearing. Likewise, I want him to know ALWAYS that this is a journey that I would rather take WITH him than alone. That’s the balance I try to strike. I agree - forcing him to go could backfire, but then again, I don’t want him to think I forgot about inviting him along!!!

I assume that you go to mass on a somewhat regular schedule, and I suspect he knows exactly what that schedule is. If you didn’t say anything about it until you were on your way out the door, I really don’t think he’d be taken by surprise and left feeling uninvited. If he wants to go, he’ll be ready. If he doesn’t want to go, you’ll know it because he won’t be with you when you leave. I think we’re all in agreement that forcing the issue would likely be counterproductive.

As for the kids, that’s a tough one. Although I don’t share your faith, I can understand that you would want you children to grow up sharing your beliefs, and it’s understandable that you would like your husband’s support in that regard. Although he may not be as supportive as you like, at least he’s not actively opposing you. The fact that he thinks that “it’s nice” that the kids are being raised in the Church is also a positive thing, from my point of view. I think many atheists recognize that there are some positive things about raising children within some kind of religious structure. Having a supportive community, a foundation upon which to develop a moral code, the feeling that everything is under the control of a loving supreme being, etc, etc, can give a child a feeling of security. Whether or not your children maintain these beliefs into adulthood is, for the most part, out of your control. And while they may question your beliefs at a younger age when they notice that Dad doesn’t share them, in the end, it probably doesn’t make that much difference. If they are going to believe, they’ll believe. (But maybe after taking a detour, like their mom did.)

 

[garyr]

Re: What to do about the atheist husband?

**Consecrate **your entire family - here’s how:

familyland.be/family_consecration/introduction-to-consecration-to-the-holy-family.html

YBIC-
Gary R.

 

[rwillenborg]

How dare you force your children into a religion before they are old enough to compare different religions and make an educated, mature choice. There is no difference in labeling children marxist, atheist, nazi, jewish, christian, conservative, or any other ideology believed by the parents. This is a terrible tragedy, why do they need to believe in god? will they be bad children and not learn wrong and right, do they not know the golden rule which is innate in all of us?
Do you really need to proselytize with innocent children?
Is it because if you don’t drum it in there heads now there is a fair chance they will never believe it, because it is so illogical and counter intuitive?
Or do you think we “Atheists and all believers of other religions” are missing something, that the view from nowhere is empty of love and emotions, do you think 80% of all humans are wrong and you are right?
Come on, don’t abuse the minds of children, don’t make them listen to clergy who may possibly abuse them, without your knowing.
Let children make their own sense of the world, discover, don’t force dogma upon them please. Ever heard of free will, let your children exercise the right to use there god given free will.

Lucy,
Are you trying to be funny?

I am teaching them everything else about the world, why not this? Why should THIS be the one thing I let the rest of the world instill in my children, without having any (name removed by moderator)ut? I’m their parent. It’s my job to help them make sense of the world. Force dogma upon them? I force them to eat vegetables. I force them to give eachother hugs even when one stole the other’s toy. I force them to not pull on the cat’s tail. I force them to go to the grocery store with me, even though they want to stay home and play. Why should i shroud my faith in secrecy from them? Why should that be the part of my life that I don’t share with them? And why JUST that?
Don’t worry, Lucy, if these kids are anything like I was, they’ll reject all dogma once they reach adulthood anyway.

 

[rwillenborg]

Oh, and nothing can take away the free will of children. Just ask any parent of grown kids.

Ha! SO very true. Even parents of not-quite-grown kids will tell you that!!
I do have to laugh at the use of the word ‘force’ when it comes to children. I even say I ‘force’ them to do things, but, if I’m being brutally honest, my ‘force’ doesn’t amount to much.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Eh, asking for advice on the internet usually nets a person advice they don’t want. I take my chances. {/quote]

May I ask, since your own situation parallels mine somewhat, does your wife actually think any of the Catholic beliefs she is passing on to her daughter will stick without your support?

I agree.

Just curious. I’ve asked my own husband the same thing. If you don’t believe this is true, why would you want me to pass it on to your children? He says it’s because he thinks it’s nice.

My own issues with Catholicism arise from my upbringing in a household where spiritual power was abused and God & Catholicism are, in my experience, irreparably entwined with the toxic faith environment I grew up in. But I also recognize that my sometimes awful experience of Catholicism is not typical and that it is at heart, a quite beautiful religion, taking the best out of each culture it encounters and leaving behind the chaff.

I hope to be able to point out the good of Catholicism to my daughter.

I may return to the practice of Christianity, and if I do, it will most likely be either to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox.

[/QUOTE]

 

[rick43235]

rwillenborg;6087142:

I may return to the practice of Christianity, and if I do, it will most likely be either to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox.

Oh no! Just when I was going to enroll in R.C.I.A. (Rite of Cheesian Initiation for Adults.)

 

[rick43235]

I may return to the practice of Christianity, and if I do, it will most likely be either to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox.

Oh no! Just when I was going to enroll in R.C.I.A. (Rite of Cheesian Initiation for Adults.)

 

[rwillenborg]

I’ve heard it said that a woman gets married thinking that she can change her husband, and a man gets married thinking his wife will never change. Maybe you have some of that dynamic is going on here.

I assume that you go to mass on a somewhat regular schedule, and I suspect he knows exactly what that schedule is. If you didn’t say anything about it until you were on your way out the door, I really don’t think he’d be taken by surprise and left feeling uninvited. If he wants to go, he’ll be ready. If he doesn’t want to go, you’ll know it because he won’t be with you when you leave. I think we’re all in agreement that forcing the issue would likely be counterproductive.

As for the kids, that’s a tough one. Although I don’t share your faith, I can understand that you would want you children to grow up sharing your beliefs, and it’s understandable that you would like your husband’s support in that regard. Although he may not be as supportive as you like, at least he’s not actively opposing you. The fact that he thinks that “it’s nice” that the kids are being raised in the Church is also a positive thing, from my point of view. I think many atheists recognize that there are some positive things about raising children within some kind of religious structure. Having a supportive community, a foundation upon which to develop a moral code, the feeling that everything is under the control of a loving supreme being, etc, etc, can give a child a feeling of security. Whether or not your children maintain these beliefs into adulthood is, for the most part, out of your control. And while they may question your beliefs at a younger age when they notice that Dad doesn’t share them, in the end, it probably doesn’t make that much difference. If they are going to believe, they’ll believe. (But maybe after taking a detour, like their mom did.)

Having a supportive community, a foundation upon which to develop a moral code, the feeling that everything is under the control of a loving supreme being, etc, etc, can give a child a feeling of security.

I have to disagree here. If a foundation is false, it’s not really a foundation, though, is it? There’s no security in that. There’s no security in teaching children everything is under the control of a loving supreme being if that’s a lie. That’s like saying daddy will be home any minute, when we all know he skipped town. So I don’t understand why he is comfortable with me teaching the children what he believes to be false, even if the pound cake at the parish picnic is delicious. That’s not a good enough reason to teach falsehoods. Heck, the girls don’t even know about Santa Claus!!

But you’re right, I guess he could be saying ‘it’s terrible’ rather than ‘it’s nice’, but let’s be honest, if I can take the kids to Mass once a week, but he doesn’t want prayers or God spoken of in the house, well, then why even bother with Mass? Teaching a child about faith for one hour a week, well, you might as well not bother. I know, that’s how I learned to play clarinet. Trust me, you don’t’ want to hear me play the clarinet.

 

[Salonika]

rwillenborg:

Yes, that’s the balance I am trying to find. When does it change from inviting to nagging?
…
I want to be loving and supportive and encouraging, but not over bearing.

Agree this is a difficult to achieve and what you should do can change according to the situation and how people are feeling.

After I left the Church I had to work very hard not to feel that getting the newsletter or an invitation to special services was not always a challenge to my decision or an attempt to lure me back. Now some years on I can be more discerning. Sometimes I know it is, sometimes that it is not and sometimes I still wonder

Think too the situation about invitations depends on the person – some people assume there is an open invitation and don’t need a second one. Other people need a separate invitation each time. Most are in the middle. Where does your husband fit? I sometimes get into trouble about not going somewhere because I was not specifically invited eg drinks after work. I don’t want to gatecrash or intrude on what was meant to be private discussion among friends.
lucy fur:

How dare you force your children into a religion before they are old enough to compare different religions and make an educated, mature choice.

Part of me agrees with this and another part doesn’t. Where does exposure stop and indoctrination begin. But what is very important is that children are exposed to a range of religious beliefs and that all beliefs have validity.

Also I think children need to know that there are times when parents will disagree on important subjects and this is not a bad thing but how it is handled can be.

I was always aware that my parents had very different political views – this seemed quite natural to me coming out of their different experiences and personalities.

Also think that parents to check what their children are taking in and make sure it is accurate and helpful to them. This is especially important as younger children are concrete thinkers and a lot of religious language is not literal.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Oh no! Just when I was going to enroll in R.C.I.A. (Rite of Cheesian Initiation for Adults.)

lol.

For lunch we had Midnight Moon goat cheese and a nice Brie. There was another cheese as well, but I can’t pronounce it, much less spell it.

 

[tedfay]

But what is very important is that children are exposed to a range of religious beliefs and that all beliefs have validity.

Be careful, this statement is objectively not correct. Not all beliefs have validity. Some have believed - quite genuinely - that the world was coming to an end on such-and-such a date. However, that hasn’t happened yet.

Some have believed in the divinity of Jesus. Others have denied it.

Not both can be valid. Therefore, not all beliefs have validity.

What you appear, at least to me, to be expressing is today’s notion of moral relativism - where all beliefs are to be “tolerated” and have some sense of truth. However, not all beliefs are valid. Those that are not valid should be discarded and those that are valid should be adopted.

The key question, of course, is how to tell the difference.

 

[Kindness]

Rwillenborg, I wonder if you heard of the Green Scapular? It is a Scapular with the promise of conversion for non-believers. I only found this out recently and I have been a Catholic since 1986! As soon as Christmas is over I intend to track one down and start to fervently devote myself to prayer for my dear brother and his family. I have prayed for him off and on over the years but I really feel called to pray and fast for him. Jesus said some things will not change without both. The recommended fast is a day of bread and water, if that is too much with your young ones (i.e. if you are sleep deprived, exhausted or still nursing) just give up something or refrain from a temptation to be negative for example.

Maybe we could start a new thread devoted to prayers for our non believing loved ones!

God bless you and God is with you!

 

[lucy_fur]

Lucy, I will use your own argument against you. How dare you to presume to instruct children to make moral choices? You should let them go out and explore and make up their own minds if murder is appropriate. How dare you presume to teach children that there is no God? You can’t prove the non-existence of God, so you should not presume to impose your beliefs on children. How dare you presume to teach children anything about science, you destroy their free will by not allowing them to find out for themsleves.

The reality is that your assertions don’t make any sense. At it’s heart, your argument boils down to the intimidation of your anger being used as a weapon to browbeat others to conform your point of view - or to convince yourself that you are right.

Of course we teach our children the Truth as we understand it. We love our children and are obligated to teach them how to live properly in our society. That means teaching them how to make moral choices, not just exploring the world and doing what they want. Because God is real, we are also obligated to teach them about what God has revealed to us.

Of course, my previous statements pre-suppose the existence of God. If you scroll up a few pages you will see some pretty convincing arguments for the existence and nature of God.

Oh, and nothing can take away the free will of children. Just ask any parent of grown kids.

¨Whats wrong with children making moral choices? Nobody instructs children to make a choice. Scaring children with the notion of hell doesn’t leave much choice. Children instinctively know that murder is wrong, children already have a moral compass, the rest they will learn by your example (good or bad).Or do you assume that children of other religions, or of atheist parents(like myself) are immoral children, or they are socially inept ? Or even worse, you are basically telling me if it where not for the bible you would be immoral and not know that stealing, raping and killing is wrong? I for one don’t need any holy book to tell me that, you might.
I will also never say there is 100% no god, only that invoking a god for every gap is a bit weak, and every child will then also ask where god comes from, that’s where you start your infinite regression. How about the universe(s) were always there, no need for a creator anymore, and science is showing us that this is probably the case.

You can’t disprove an infinite number of things, including other gods.
What has god revealed to you that I missed out on and isn’t in your book?
There is absolutely no evidence for god, nothing. If there were evidence then science would know, because science believes evidence even if it doesn’t agree with them. Religion on the other hand doesn’t need evidence because you have FAITH, what a lame argument, all believers of all religions and any other quackery all have faith but by no means can they all be right. So faith is not proof of god, faith is proof that you believe “X” despite lack of evidence.
Clergy sexually abusing children (100000 known cases in the USA alone, over 400 clergy on trial) does take away a child’s free will.
I really hope there are some people here who can argue their case better then tedfay

 

[lucy_fur]

Why the Christian God is Impossible
by Chad Docterman

Introduction

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.

Proving a Universal Negative

It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.



I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.

Defining YHWH

Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

God’s creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.

Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection
What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

 

[lucy_fur]

Perfection Begets Imperfection

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.



What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

The Freewill Argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.



Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.



Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.

Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

Belief More Important Than Action
Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.

 

[lucy_fur]

Perfection’s Imperfect Revelation

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.



No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

Contradictory Justice

One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.

Contradictory History

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?

Unfulfilled Prophecy

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.
The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.

The Omniscient Changes the Future
A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.

The Omniscient is Surprised
A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife’s infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.

We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.

The Conclusion of the matter:
I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and freethinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of Yahweh, the “perfect” creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of “divine transcendence” and “faith,” and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

“You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned.”

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

As for me and my house, we shall choose realit

 

[insideitall]

Sometimes people forget that their lack of belief in God, or that lack of faith in a particular religion, is in fact a belief in something else, or an admission of faith of something else.

When an atheist explains why they don’t believe in God, they’re doing the same thing followers of a “religion” do when they talk on and on about “God” and “rules” and “indoctrination” - they’re trying to convince the other person why their set of beliefs, their set of values, their way of living life, is better and more true than the other fellow’s.

Take any example of someone who is “indoctrinating” their children, and replace all referances to “God” or “Jesus” or “church” or “Bible” with “Science” or “Darwin” or “Mother Earth” or some textbook or journal paper title - it’s the same thing, just from the secular side.

Why should life be easy? Life is not easy even for animals. Why does the fact that pain and hardship exist preclude there being a higher power? Ever heard the phrase “Whatever doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger”? Our character is developed when we persevere, and we have amazing capabilities to emerge out the other side a much better person. And while we’re talking about superlatives, who defines what “better” is, anyway? Moral relativism is completely illogical, yet so many otherwise intelligent, even brilliant, people cannot see this. Why is murder unacceptable? Why, and how, do we all know this? If there is no absolute morality, can’t we all do whatever we want whenever we want? Why should we care what others think or how they feel? Should we just not have any laws at all, because we supposedly already know how to behave? And if that’s really true, doesn’t that mean there’s an absolute morality outside of us? How else would we all know certain things are wrong, if a human made the rule up?

Anytime we tell one group of people they can’t do something, but another group of people can do the opposite, we’re essentially saying that one choice is better than the other. How about some kids sitting at the lunch table - you tell one group, who has chosen to say a prayer before eating, that they can’t do that, while you tell the other group, who does not want to pray before eating, that that choice is acceptable. You are really saying, if you choose to pray, that’s a bad choice, but if you don’t choose to pray, that’s a good choice. In fact, we’ll make it so there’s a punishment if you choose the bad choice. Sounds eerily like indoctrination to me… punishment for choosing the wrong thing…

Moving on.

To the OP - I think many people have given you great advice. Have you two sat down and actually discussed your differences here? I mean, “I feel…” instead of “I wish you…”. Supposedly, phrasing it the first way makes people less defensive and more likely to engage in productive conversation. Maybe ask him how he thinks the problem can be solved. I think you are very lucky right now, that he does allow you to raise them Catholic. If the assumption that you two did not have a Catholic wedding is correct, he is under no obligation to raise the children that way. Make church and religious instruction fun for your girls, so that mommy doesn’t have to be the crazy wacky one, mommy can be fun. I know they’re young now, but something as simple as “Jesus cares about the sick people, why don’t we color some cards?” and drop them off at a nursing home or hospital can start them off with that attitude of service to others. Even if at this point, “coloring” only means “scribbling”

 

[rwillenborg]

Rwillenborg, I wonder if you heard of the Green Scapular? It is a Scapular with the promise of conversion for non-believers. I only found this out recently and I have been a Catholic since 1986! As soon as Christmas is over I intend to track one down and start to fervently devote myself to prayer for my dear brother and his family. I have prayed for him off and on over the years but I really feel called to pray and fast for him. Jesus said some things will not change without both. The recommended fast is a day of bread and water, if that is too much with your young ones (i.e. if you are sleep deprived, exhausted or still nursing) just give up something or refrain from a temptation to be negative for example.

Maybe we could start a new thread devoted to prayers for our non believing loved ones!

God bless you and God is with you!

I hadn’t heard of that, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Ah, fasting.
Not a bad idea at all.
I’ve tried before, not for this purpose, but for others. I’ll be honest, it’s tough. I know, I know, it’s supposed to be. But food is SOOOOOO delicious!!!
I can prolly handle it - the girls are two, not nursing, and though I AM generally exhausted, I suspect my food intake has alot less to do with it than the kids getting up at night.
Bread and water might be do-able. It’s the fasts that are NOTHING all day long that get me into trouble.