Religion, Parenthood, Brainwashing and Branding

[Bradski]

Where does faith come into this instruction? How does knowing the facts of a religion impart a sense of faith?

I have a nephew, who is just reaching the age where he is starting to understand death and mortality. It caused him a lot of distress to think that there might be a day when he is here, alive, and I’m not. He is raised in a secular home, without any faith, and respecting his parents’ choice, I’d never shared my faith with him. Until the day he came to me, tears in his eyes, and wanted me to explain how I could be okay with the fact that someday, the people I love will die. I explained to him what it meant to believe in an eternal life, to believe in God, to believe that when I’m sad or worried or scared I can tell God.

This is what is missing when a child is raised without faith. And it only gets harder as one gets older and the questions get more difficult. I personally can’t endorse raising a child like that.

‘Well, kid, when you die you get buried in the ground and eaten by worms.’

‘Well, kid, if you are naughty you get sent to hell where you will be tormented for eternity’.

I’m not sure either approach is good for young children.

Tell him what you believe by all means, but don’t tell him he must believe it.

 

[casslean]

‘Well, kid, when you die you get buried in the ground and eaten by worms.’

‘Well, kid, if you are naughty you get sent to hell where you will be tormented for eternity’.

I’m not sure either approach is good for young children.

Tell him what you believe by all means, but** don’t tell him he must believe it**.

What does that mean?

I also noticed you left out the much more comforting “When I die, I’ll go to Heaven and spend eternity with God, and when you die, you’ll go there too, and everyone you love will be there for you.” Certainly a reasonable approach for children, I would think.

 

[rcwitness]

‘Well, kid, if you are naughty you get sent to hell where you will be tormented for eternity’.

This is so ridiculous!

How about… “Well, my beloved, we are so blessed to have a God who loves us so much, that He suffered humiliation and blasphemy and even torture and death, so that we could be forgiven of our “naughtiness” and live in His glory forever!”

Be thankful my friend! You are loved by your creator!

 

[Reepicheep]

So I saw this meme on Facebook today…

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/38/33/f3/3833f3567005a48e26581de1cf2731b4.jpg

IOW: it’s a cruel and abusive form of parenting to brand your child with a religious identity.
Just like no parent should tell a child, “No! You don’t like latkes! Your favorite food is fish!”…no parent should tell a child, “You are a Christian!” That’s a form of brainwashing.

Thoughts?

Latkes vs fish is a matter of taste, a preference.

Christian vs non-Christian is a matter of truth. Christianity is the truth. You don’t refuse to let your children be taught math and literacy on the grounds that you don’t want to brainwash them with the idea that math and literacy are needed in their lives.

 

[PRmerger]

‘Well, kid, when you die you get buried in the ground and eaten by worms.’

‘Well, kid, if you are naughty you get sent to hell where you will be tormented for eternity’.

I’m not sure either approach is good for young children.

You are correct here.

But if hell exists, then there is a way we should be teaching our children about it, yes?

Tell him what you believe by all means, but don’t tell him he must believe it.

That’s the inanity of inanities.

Imagine telling your son, “Son, I believe that 15 is greater than 6, but you don’t have to believe that!”

“Son, I believe that you should spell Guam G-U-A-M. But you don’t have to spell it like that! If you want to spell it P-U-W, that’s certainly your right and I will fight your Geography teacher for your right to do this this way!”

“Son, I believe that you should go to school, but you don’t have to if you don’t want to!”

“Son, I believe that you should go to bed at 8pm, but you don’t have to, if that’s not what you believe!”

 

[PRmerger]

‘Well, kid, if you are naughty you get sent to hell where you will be tormented for eternity’.

What about this, “Well, kid, there’s a washed out bridge ahead. If you keep driving in this direction, you’re headed for danger”.

Do you find this an analogy to be agreeable?

 

[PRmerger]

Latkes vs fish is a matter of taste, a preference.

Christian vs non-Christian is a matter of truth. Christianity is the truth. You don’t refuse to let your children be taught math and literacy on the grounds that you don’t want to brainwash them with the idea that math and literacy are needed in their lives.

Precisely

 

[Reepicheep]

Using your ‘objective refence point’ doesn’t appear to work either. So many opinions on the difference between right and wrong.

Tell me if you have it right all the time. If you do, I have a few problems you can solve for me. If not, then how on earth do you know who does?

A couple of blazingly simple questions for you…

I have been known to add up a column of numbers and get the wrong answer. None the less there was an objectively right answer, and I can know that there was even if my answer was inaccurate.

I have been known to be unable to solve a math problem. None the less I knew there was a correct solution to that problem because I knew that mathematics has objectively correct standards.

Why can I not know the same thing about moral or ethical right and wrong?

 

[Reepicheep]

(snipped)
Bolding Mine

I don’t claim to be a “moral person”. No Christian worthy of the word would claim “moral” for him/herself, as if goodness itself resided in us. Morality is not * the arrival point*, it points the way to the good.
Scripture expresses this journey as “only God is good”. All others are on the way. We are evaluating life in reference to God. We do it imperfectly. There exists an objective reference point, and, life is still messy. The two are coexisting. There are competing versions of the destination.
When we claim to pursue morality in reference to the good, we are not claiming to possess it. If we possessed God, we would be God, right? We are not God, we are seeking God.

What “morality” means for a Christian is this:
"I am willing to admit that an objective good exists and submit myself to it. My thoughts, feelings, urges, opinions, reason, are all subject to the good (God)."

**This is the only way a true moral evaluation can be made. You can’t make an evaluation when the goal post is moving side to side, eh? Or if you won’t even admit a goalpost exists. If you admit a goalpost exists, then there cannot be two goalposts, eh?
**

I quote for truth, especially the words I bolded.

 

[inocente]

Christian vs non-Christian is a matter of truth. Christianity is the truth.

“My religion vs other religion” is a fundamentalist charter. It’s what ISIS does. Believe my truth or be beheaded. There’s a substantial difference between a class which teaches what each religion believes, and one which teaches my religion vs other religions. One gives the student freedom, the other takes it away. One is fine, the other is evil.

What about this, “Well, kid, there’s a washed out bridge ahead. If you keep driving in this direction, you’re headed for danger”.

Do you find this an analogy to be agreeable?

If you mean “act with fairness and kindness and you’ll have a better life” then fine. But if you mean “believe in my god or he’ll torture you for ever” then that’s evil.

 

[Reepicheep]

So, keeping this profoundly simple, you cannot tell wrong from right. Or at least, what you describe as being wrong or right is only your opinion. Well, apart from what you might find in scripture (which you will cherry pick) or the catechism.

It doesn’t sound like having an objective good is worth anything at all if no-one knows what it is.

“I am not infallible” does not equal “I can never get the right answer, nor ever know if an answer is correct.”

If I sometimes get the wrong answer when doing math I still know there is a right answer.

I can do the problem several times and see if the same answer keeps cropping up.

I can consult someone else I know to be better at math.

I can open a textbook and check my assumptions against the contents.

I can use a calculator.

“I’m not infallible” does not mean “I can’t get it right.” It does not mean “I shouldn’t bother trying.” It **most certainly **doesn’t mean “there is no objective truth for me to know.”

 

[Reepicheep]

About 70% of the planet’s population follows one of the three major religions. It influences their actions, their politics, their beliefs…

Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have some understanding of what each of those religions entails?

Yes it would be. I don’t see how refusing to teach our children our own religion is going to help them understand other people’s religions.

 

[Reepicheep]

casslean
Where does faith come into this instruction? How does knowing the facts of a religion impart a sense of faith?

I have a nephew, who is just reaching the age where he is starting to understand death and mortality. It caused him a lot of distress to think that there might be a day when he is here, alive, and I’m not. He is raised in a secular home, without any faith, and respecting his parents’ choice, I’d never shared my faith with him. Until the day he came to me, tears in his eyes, and wanted me to explain how I could be okay with the fact that someday, the people I love will die. I explained to him what it meant to believe in an eternal life, to believe in God, to believe that when I’m sad or worried or scared I can tell God.

This is what is missing when a child is raised without faith. And it only gets harder as one gets older and the questions get more difficult. I personally can’t endorse raising a child like that.

‘Well, kid, when you die you get buried in the ground and eaten by worms.’

‘Well, kid, if you are naughty you get sent to hell where you will be tormented for eternity’.

I’m not sure either approach is good for young children.

Tell him what you believe by all means, but don’t tell him he must believe it.

Casslean said “this is what I believe.”
Casslean did not say “you must believe this”.

Casslean said “to believe in God, to believe that when I’m sad or worried or scared I can tell God.”
Casslean did not say “naughty children go to hell”.

 

[Reepicheep]

“My religion vs other religion” is a fundamentalist charter. It’s what ISIS does. Believe my truth or be beheaded. There’s a substantial difference between a class which teaches what each religion believes, and one which teaches my religion vs other religions. One gives the student freedom, the other takes it away. One is fine, the other is evil.

If you mean “act with fairness and kindness and you’ll have a better life” then fine. But if you mean “believe in my god or he’ll torture you for ever” then that’s evil.

“I teach you this because it’s true” does not equal “believe this or I’ll cut off your head.”

Tell me, Inocente: do you know of any cases in the last, oh, fifty years, when a major Christian church practiced or condoned execution for failure to believe in Christ?

 

[Bradski]

I have been known to add up a column of numbers and get the wrong answer. None the less there was an objectively right answer, and I can know that there was even if my answer was inaccurate.

I have been known to be unable to solve a math problem. None the less I knew there was a correct solution to that problem because I knew that mathematics has objectively correct standards.

Why can I not know the same thing about moral or ethical right and wrong?

If you don’t understand the difference between maths and morality, then I don’t see much of a prospect for a sensible discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

If you don’t understand the difference between maths and morality, then I don’t see much of a prospect for a sensible discussion.

If you can’t see the similarity between maths and morality, then…

 

[rcwitness]

If you can’t see the similarity between maths and morality, then…

Oh, I know this one! Both have universal absolutes?

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, I know this one! Both have universal absolutes?

And both have data and facts?

 

[PRmerger]

And both have data and facts?

And both have right and wrong answers?

NB: let me pre-empt by saying: yes, it’s true, some moral questions do not have right/wrong answers.* Some* morality is subjective…but that’s not the same thing as saying all morality is subjective.

Unless someone can tell me that it might be “right” for a man to kill his daughter, if that’s what he’s morally discerned, because she was raped and is now no longer valuable as a stained non-virgin?

Can that ever be the right answer?

 

[Reepicheep]

If you don’t understand the difference between maths and morality, then I don’t see much of a prospect for a sensible discussion.

I didn’t say they were the same. I invented an analogy.

There is objective moral truth, and if I don’t always get it right the objective truth still exists.

The best way to deal with mistakes is not to pretend there’s no right answer but to keep trying to do better.