A question for those who were raised Catholic

[Joan_of_Bark]

Really…I have to say with the best of intentions, a remark like that in print looks like a backhanded insult with the implication that people of faith have lesser reasoning than you. The flies are not flocking to the vinegar.

I’m sorry if that’s what you inferred. I was merely responding to steve b’s presumption in the statement that I “1st get rid of the obsticles in your way, whether they are there of your own making, or the making of others…”

How could steve b. possibly know anything about any “obstacles”.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

In the end, truth always wins out.

So you should relax, put your feet up and have a coffee.

I don’t disagree. It’s still happening today. Satan is doing a masterful job at sifting people away from the truth.

You are aware that in the book of Job Satan is an agent of God?

No educated person argues that Jesus was not a historical person, or that His life is NOT historical.

I didn’t say that he didn’t exist. I said I didn’t believe in the story of the resurrection. Nor do religious Jews or Muslims.

The fact you don’t believe it happened, doesn’t change the facts of this historical event.

The fact that you believe it happened, doesn’t make it a historical event.

Everybody believes. It doesn’t mean that all the stuff one believes is true. One can be 100% wrong in what they believe. Because what they believe is false.

You can’t reason accurately, without facts. Don’t give parking space in your head with nonsense. Seek truth, it won’t fall apart on you when put under cross examination.

The bolded part could apply to either of us, or even both of us.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

I would definitely say we are extremely different. there has been as there is more pressure on Catholics. Today more so than ever it seems.

Considering your fist assumption, you mix geographical, cultural, and nurture factors with brainwashing.

brainwash=
n.

1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person’s basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.

with the above definitions, it should explain very quickly that raising a child with knowledge about parental attitudes, character, and even religion. does not designate that child as being “brainwashed”.

Now within India, Israel, etc. there are several culture/heritage blend into the religion and vise verse. This again, however, does not equate to “brainwash”. The “American Culture” has various ideals in it self that actually brings harm to those who practice them, however unlike India these practices/ideals do not connect with any religion. Catholicism in itself does not connect with any present society, culture, heritage. it is of it’s own culture, that breaks differences in culture/heritage/society. I most likely have little in common with the people in Egypt, but for the Catholics in Egypt, I have more than just what’s in common that binds us closer together(just thought that was nice to say).

Okay, I’ll give that more thought.

You obviously didn’t read my post where I withdrew and apologized for using the word brainwashing.

I notice you also incorrectly explain Confirmation. We don’t ask anyone which is the correct religion. We ask the kids(and adults) to confirm their own belief in the Creed. Everyone who does partake in Confirmation go through the Church Teachings from Baptism to Confirmation with courses on the Church. Though it is interesting comment, I don’t make a decision simply because I know no other decision, or that there are no other reasons currently present in front of me. I did not Confirm in being Catholic because I was not aware of anything else (as I actually was aware of other religions/cultures), but because it felt right. It made me happy, and I did my best to be my best.

The post about confirmation wasn’t mine, but I appreciate your response.

 

[TommyWommy]

Have you ever considered that you may have been brainwashed?

Consider the fact that children raised in Saudi Arabia become … Muslims. Those raised in most of India become Hindus. Children raised by practicing Jews in Israel tend to become practicing Jews. And kids raised by evangelical Protestants usually turn out to be Protestants. Why do you suppose this is? Do you believe that upon becoming free-willed adults they carefully consider all religious creeds and come to the conclusion that (fill in the blank) is really the best and truest religion?

One of the things that led me back to Catholicism is that, unlike many other Christian denominations or religions, it allows for an implicit faith within those who are seeking truth. In other words, if I am a “brainwashed” Hindu that is seeking truth, God sees merit in my search. Truth is not a “thing” or an “idea” but a person. Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” A person who genuinely seeks truth is seeking Jesus, even if she/he doesn’t realize it. Even if she/he is seeking within the context of a non-Christian environment. I’m not worried about “brainwashing” anymore. Humans (even athiests) are wired to search for that which transcends us. As a Catholic, my job is to do my best with what has been revealed to me. Jesus is Truth, God is love, Jesus is God. “Seek and you shall find.”

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Could you explain or give example on other religious sects that supposedly dispute or battle for “the truth” in Christian origins? Presently the claim is the Church was than it got off track which resulted in ‘reform’. though there was no reform, so was there any off track motion either?

I’m hesitant to respond to this, as it’s getting us way off topic. I’ll just say the gnostics and* the Arians*, and ask that if you want to pursue this topic to start a new thread.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

On the other hand, while a change from Christianity or any other religion to agnosticism or atheism may be “reasoned” it does not involve the adoption of a new set of dogma. Agosticisn and atheism are really an absence of dogma. The agnostic believes that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable while the atheist denies the existence of God.

So far, I agree.

Both of these positions leave the individual free to believe anything they want–there is no absolute truth (other than for the athiest and their denial that there is a God).

Now here I most vehemently disagree. Almost all the atheists and agnostics I know certainly believe there is an absolute truth – one that can be glimpsed in science. We just don’t believe in any absolute moral truth.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

@Joan of the Ark: I believe in a certain degree, you are right. If a person being asked why are you a Catholic(or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist…) and that person answered: “Because I was raised so”, then that person is not really part of that religion, given that he/she is ignorant of his/her religion, like most lukewarm Christians or most East Asian Buddhists who follow Buddhism just for lucks and because it’s a tradition.

But does that mean ALL Catholics are brainwashed to be a Catholic? I believe if a person have never had any doubts about his/her religion, he/she is not a real member of that religion. Questions help build up our faith and solidify it, by compare and contrast, asking questions, a person could finally decide whether he/she should follow any particular religion.

But does that mean everybody must leave their religion and join other beliefs and ideas once in a lifetime and finally have a “come back” scenario to be qualified as true believer? Of course not.

Now here’s a question for you Joan, if you believe there is no certain objective truth or objective morality. But don’t you think by stating that there’s no objective truth or objective morality, you’re establishing that there’s an objective truth, that there’s no objective truth. The same given, by stating that all religions might be right, you just established an objective truth, that all religions might be right.

Should parents cooperate their religious model in education? The answer is a definite yes.

 

[cecilia97]

I attended the school that was closest to my home. I’m sure my mother put no more thought into it than considering the matter of distance.

The point is that you went to the school your mother sent you to…in part because you didn’t have the capacity to make that decision for yourself.

But does a parent only feed a child the same food all the time, on the understanding that it’s the only food the child should eat? Do you only let them listen to one kind of music, because it’s the only kind you like? Would you want a child to turn out exactly like you in their opinions?

No, but a parent consistently gives the child what she believes is BEST. If someone doesn’t believe their religion is the best, why the heck are they wasting their time on it?

Show me one child who has turned out exactly like their parent and then you might have some sort of valid point. People are individuals and they’re going to be different no matter what. What we’re playing here is an unrealistic game of “what if”.

Every parent of faith wants to pass that faith along to their child because they clearly believe it is BEST. Others may not agree, but the beauty of being a parent is that you get to decide…yes, decide…for your children. You choose their name, you select their neighborhood, you even have control over what friends they spend time with, if you wish. Under what assumptions has society decided that these things are any different from deciding where your child worships while they are a minor?

I don’t have kids, but if I ever do, they will be at Mass with me at least once a week while they live in my home. They may visit other churches with friends, but they will also go to Mass.

And you bet if they started getting into another faith that I believed was not as good for their immortal souls (which I believe is all other faiths) I would do everything in my power to turn them around.

Okay, now you’ve answered the question I posed in the OP.

And I would hope you extend that same sentiment to people of other beliefs. Perhaps you do.

I believe that people of other faiths sincerely believe they have the truth, but of course, I believe they are wrong. Just as I expect they think I’m wrong, or they would also be Catholic.

 

[antroji]

@Ceciilia97: You say “…In the end, the gulf between us is that you understand religion to be a choice about which option among several viable options is the best. People of strong faith do not understand religion this way. There is truth and there is falsehood. If you believed you had a truth, you would want to give it to your children, too.” So you are saying that regadless if I have a strong faith in being a Shintoist, Christadelphian, belonging to a Cargo cult, or am a Pocomaniac, etc, I would I would naturally pass that belief on to my children? Well, yes, and they would likely grow up in that “way” and tend to pass it on as well.

But I think that that is where Joan’s question applies: do you think, then, that because these might be strong faiths that they are equally correspondent to Reality? If not, then if one was an imparital observer having no stake in the matter, which would you asses as being more accurate as a 1/1 map of actuality, and on what grounds? I’m also curious what anyone might ask as questions in this regard that are not based in one’s own religious tradition, whatever that might be, but from a Universal standpoint.

 

[cecilia97]

@Ceciilia97: You say “…In the end, the gulf between us is that you understand religion to be a choice about which option among several viable options is the best. People of strong faith do not understand religion this way. There is truth and there is falsehood. If you believed you had a truth, you would want to give it to your children, too.” So you are saying that regadless if I have a strong faith in being a Shintoist, Christadelphian, belonging to a Cargo cult, or am a Pocomaniac, etc, I would I would naturally pass that belief on to my children? Well, yes, and they would likely grow up in that “way” and tend to pass it on as well.

I don’t disagree. I think the different between Joan’s position and mine is that she seems to think this is problematic.

But I think that that is where Joan’s question applies: do you think, then, that because these might be strong faiths that they are equally correspondent to Reality? If not, then if one was an imparital observer having no stake in the matter, which would you asses as being more accurate as a 1/1 map of actuality, and on what grounds? I’m also curious what anyone might ask as questions in this regard that are not based in one’s own religious tradition, whatever that might be, but from a Universal standpoint.

I believe my faith is reality. I understand that others may not view it that way. But to assume that a person of any faith has not asked hard questions about it is, frankly, misinformed. We are not robots just because we’re still in the faith we grew up with.

 

[steve_b]

So you should relax, put your feet up and have a coffee.

that’s not the way it works

JoB:

You are aware that in the book of Job Satan is an agent of God?

He is the adversary of, not agent of, God.

JoB:

I didn’t say that he didn’t exist. I said I didn’t believe in the story of the resurrection. Nor do religious Jews or Muslims.

Wrong.

In the beginning 100% of the Church were Jews. Jesus was a practicing Jew. He went to the temple. He celebrated all the Jewish rituals. So did the apostles. Jesus while on this earth, focused on the Jews. As for the Jews who didn’t convert, and won’t believe, they can’t disprove the resurrection. Neither can the Muslims.

JoB:

The fact that you believe it happened, doesn’t make it a historical event.

My belief doesn’t make it so. The fact it happened makes it so.

JoB:

The bolded part could apply to either of us, or even both of us.

The reality of seeing Him alive again, disturbed so many who executed Jesus, they had to say He never died in the first place. Others had to invent stories that robbers took His body…etc etc. The resurrection happened!!!

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Now here’s a question for you Joan, if you believe there is no certain objective truth or objective morality. But don’t you think by stating that there’s no objective truth or objective morality, you’re establishing that there’s an objective truth, that there’s no objective truth. The same given, by stating that all religions might be right, you just established an objective truth, that all religions might be right.

I’ve read this part a few times, but I’m not sure what you’re asking me.

I’ll say that I believe there is an objective truth in the universe (that mere humans may never fully access), which is function of scientific laws. I don’t believe in an objective morality, only the morality humans create to help society function. This morality changes according to time and place.

I have a feeling that doesn’t really answer your question.

 

[Marie5890]

(First of all I didnt read the entire thread and only have time to reply to the OP)

I do see your question. And it’s worthy of discussion and consideration.

I do think that there are fine lines between “brainwashing”, “indoctrination” and “being raised, influenced”

But they are different.

I would suggest that there are elements of (or were years ago) indoctrination that goes on in western culture but I do think we are more exposed to different people and cultures and have more freedom to use critical thinking and reasoning skills. Hopefully those qualities are as encouraged and developed as faith.

It is a very dangerous thing to have a faith without any sense of reason. That leads to fanaticism IMO.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

He is the adversary of, not agent of, God.

You need to read the book of Job again. He is an agent of God, doing what God tells him to do. Satan’s role is like that of a prosecuting attorney, with God as the judge.

In the beginning 100% of the Church were Jews. Jesus was a practicing Jew. He went to the temple. He celebrated all the Jewish rituals. So did the apostles. Jesus while on this earth, focused on the Jews. As for the Jews who didn’t convert, and won’t believe, they can’t disprove the resurrection. Neither can the Muslims.

The vast majority of Jews, from the Biblical story through to modern times, *do not *believe in the resurrection. As for disproving it, can you disprove the ancient Greek stories of the Iliad? Many remarkable events were written down in the past; that doesn’t make them true. It’s the job of those who believe in them to give solid evidence that they happened. And the more remarkable the event, the more solid the evidence should be.

You don’t prove a negative, as another (Christian) poster pointed out in a previous post.

The resurrection happened!!!

And if you keep saying it often enough, with plenty of exclamation marks, eventually we’re all going to believe.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

(First of all I didnt read the entire thread and only have time to reply to the OP)

I do see your question. And it’s worthy of discussion and consideration.

I do think that there are fine lines between “brainwashing”, “indoctrination” and “being raised, influenced”

But they are different.

I would suggest that there are elements of (or were years ago) indoctrination that goes on in western culture but I do think we are more exposed to different people and cultures and have more freedom to use critical thinking and reasoning skills. Hopefully those qualities are as encouraged and developed as faith.

It is a very dangerous thing to have a faith without any sense of reason. That leads to fanaticism IMO.

Agreed.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Okay, this seems like a good time to take a stand wrt this thread.

**I will not respond to any more posts that are not related to the OP. **

Too many people are trying to open cans of worms which are taking us away from the discussion I wanted.

I thank all those who carefully considered my OP and have answered thoughtfully. Thanks also to antroji for putting a more philosophical and subtle slant on it all.

 

[Kennywood]

As we develop mentally, emotionally and spiritually we come to see things differently than perhaps we once did. . . .As a middle aged parent myself, I see being raised Catholic as a gift. A gift.

 

[antroji]

Thank you, Joan. Having seen some major emotionalism on other threads I’ve scanned, I have to admire your level headedness in dealing with the diversions and non-sequiturs that came your way. I agree that the OP contained the appearance of emotional loading, considering what many here have with a tradition of anti-communism and other positions that include a loathing of playing with someone’s mind. On the other hand, we also know from such works, not to mentions experience, as Vance Packard’s The Hidden Persuaders that we are constantly being bombarded with subtle suggestions in all of our media, from print to radio and music to movies. Can our own familie’s peculiarities be any less influential in our upbringing?

Of course not. And this is a country that at least nominally encourages individuality as part of the alleged American Dream. But in the same way that that has been subverted by abstracted capitalism, Universals have been distorted by local colorations and flavors, if you will, of ours and other faiths and some pretty strange ideologies and downright evils. So it is a matter of self competency that we ought to know how our own mind and its education happen, whoever and whatever we are, and relative to any field that involves belief.

In particular, it would be good to note the difference between what is Good and what is religious. These two are on far more independent lines of consideration than most would think, despite the natural tendency to entwine one’s thoughts about God and good with religion. But we can easily note that being religious and being good are not necessarily equal, as neither is being non-religious necessarily equatable to being evil. Go figure.

In any case, I do think that your posting has pulled back the curtain a bit on “How We Work,” a sadly neglected topic often shunned by the illusion that religion by itself as a dogmatic or even revelatory structure of belief is sufficient to gain some kinds of insight as to our inner workings, even if we are looking soul-ly/solely into the “spiritual” realm. With the statistical proof of our national dumbing down,* we are not a nation reliant on subtlty. Though it is an ancient dictum, it seems to have been sadly neglected in Christianity to “Know Thyself.” But that could, as you say, start another thread.

Good for you! Thanks for your OP.

M

* There are volumes of work on this from such as *The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America* through *Dark Age Ahead*, and the recent Newsweek article on the crisis in creativity in this country. We have gone, in twenty short years, from first in education world wide to twenty-nineth. India has more *honor* students than we have students!

 

[steve_b]

You need to read the book of Job again. He is an agent of God, doing what God tells him to do. Satan’s role is like that of a prosecuting attorney, with God as the judge.

Satan works for himself, opposed to God. Satan wanted Job’s soul. And he lost

JoB:

The vast majority of Jews, from the Biblical story through to modern times, *do not *believe in the resurrection.

Yet look at all the Jews who DID believe then and DO believe now.

Brainwashing is forcing someone to believe or NOT believe in something. What/who was forcing Jews then to believe in the resurrection? Can you name the force? If no force then there is no brainwashing. If anything, believing in Jesus got you killed and killed in the most horrid of ways. Therefore, if anything, one might say the majority was being forced NOT to believe in Jesus and the resurrection. Is that a type of brainwashing?

Who is forcing you today to believe what you believe? Are you feeling brainwashed now? Or do you feel free to believe what you want to believe?

JoB:

As for disproving it, can you disprove the ancient Greek stories of the Iliad?

Who considers them true?

JoB:

Many remarkable events were written down in the past; that doesn’t make them true. It’s the job of those who believe in them to give solid evidence that they happened. And the more remarkable the event, the more solid the evidence should be.

You don’t prove a negative, as another (Christian) poster pointed out in a previous post.

Therefore one examines the evidence to prove something is true or false

Here’s the +/- discussed
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Resurrection

JoB:

And if you keep saying it often enough, with plenty of exclamation marks, eventually we’re all going to believe.

As I said earlier, people can believe in all sorts of things that aren’t true. That’s why it’s necessary to test what you believe to see if it’s even true. Your opening focus is whether ones belief is forced or free.

As a child one takes on the beliefs of their parents. Assuming they have beliefs. When a child reaches maturity, they make their own decisions in a free society.

 

[Philthy]

Of course that’s possible. Just as some people are objectively drawn to Buddhism, Islam or or one of the many protestant sects.

• OK Joan, then are parents who have reached an objective position in regards to what they believe the truth is, supposed to teach their children that perceived truth or not?
• And if the answer is that yes they should, would you consider that brainwashing?