Doing everything your power to ensure your children are Christian

Zombrex

This is a spin of over a previous thread because the OP said they weren't interested in this line of discussion. Some background

Wicknight wrote: »

Seaneh wrote: »

Wicknight wrote:

There is a difference between education and indoctrination. Raising your children in the faith does not have to mean going out of your way to ensure that they too will likely end up Catholics.

dont be daft man. Of chouse christians will and should go out of their way to try and ensure that their children become committed christians. if we really believe what we believe we'd be extremely bad parents if we didn't. I will do everything in my power to ensure my kids grow up and stay christians and know what a relationship with their creator is and means. It would be neglegent not to.

How is it daft?

Doesn't acceptance of your sin, Jesus and salvation etc all have to be a honest, true and understood choice, not something your kids accept because you drilled it into them when they were younger?

Them being "Christian" only in the sense that they go through the cultural and religious motions because that is what is expected of them because daddy says so just makes them cultural Catholics, and judging by the free fall religion is experiencing in the West this seems rather counter productive.

nozzferrahhtoo analogy is spot on. My 4 year old is a Labour supporter seems ridiculous, as would saying I'm going to do everything in my power to ensure when my son grows up he votes FF.

You end up with people actually rejecting in early adult life all these things that they realize where not their own choice, so I was a Christian because my parents said I had to be becomes just another in a long line (I was doing computers in college because my parents said so, I took this job I hate because my parents said so, I played rugby in school because my parents said so).

Anyway, I get the impression from the OP that a discussion on indoctrination is not what he was looking for in this thread, I just think it is funny how many Christians seem to think like you. I'm happy to take it to another thread if you are. Otherwise not much more to say really.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's very daft from a Christian perspective.

I can't see how. Do you want your children to be Christian because they want to be or because you raised them to be? And yes there is a difference.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, and if parents can give their kids the tools to decide to follow Jesus for themselves at a later time I see zero issue with that.

That isn't what we are talking about those. We are talking about doing everything in your power to ensure that your children are Christian.

So while educating them about Jesus and his message may allow them to decide to follow Jesus at a later time, completely constructing their life around Christianity as if they already do follow Jesus so that they don't know any alternative, isn't.

Jakkass wrote: »

In fact it is the wise conclusion to come to if one really believes that one needs to believe in Jesus to be saved.

But being saved surely has to be a conscious rational choice, not something you accept because you simply don't know any difference?

Jakkass wrote: »

Hm. I don't know about the "free fall" to be honest with you. It seems pretty much confined to Western Europe.

Not sure where you get that from. Statics show religion falling in most Western countries at a significant rate, much higher than traditional movement between religions.

Jakkass wrote: »

One can say that their child has not made up their mind yet and that they are sharing about their faith with their child, just as any other parent shares what they hold dear with their children.

And if one is doing that I've no issue with that. That is how I was raised. Catholicism was the religion of my dad and his family.

But we both know that isn't what is being discussed here. When you make no distinction between your faith and the faith of your child (ie you are raising them Catholic and consider them Catholic) you are not sharing your faith with your child, you are giving your child your faith.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe this is what Seaneh is referring to. We're not talking about saying that one has to, it's about telling people about what Christianity is so that they can decide whether to move on or stay at a later date.

No that isn't what it is about. That is what it should be about, but a parent can and do do a lot more to ensure that his children are raised as Christians.

If you are committed to indoctrinating your kids you can ensure they believe anything. Look at the neo-Nazi kids being raised in America.

I'm not equating the damage of raising your kids neo-Nazis with raising them Christian, just pointing out the silliness of this idea that you cannot mold your kids to how you want them to be if you are committed to doing this. Of course you can, it is in fact relatively easy if you are happy to do it, children are predisposed to accepting what they are told by their parents and other authority figures and if you drill an ideology into them (any ideology) as absolute truth they are much much more likely to accept that because you told them to. And yes that holds for atheism as well as anything else.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I can't see how. Do you want your children to be Christian because they want to be or because you raised them to be? And yes there is a difference.

From a salvation point of view, it is daft. Every Christian parent will want their child to know that Jesus Christ is Lord, and to see the benefits both in this age, and in the next.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't what we are talking about those. We are talking about doing everything in your power to ensure that your children are Christian.

This is what we are talking about. Raising ones children as Christians means giving their children knowledge about Christianity is. This by the by, would also involve dealing with common new-atheist / secular criticisms of Christianity. Encouraging a faith that doesn't crumble at the first question. Ultimately on learning what Christianity is, the choice can be made.

Wicknight wrote: »

So while educating them about Jesus and his message may allow them to decide to follow Jesus at a later time, completely constructing their life around Christianity as if they already do follow Jesus so that they don't know any alternative, isn't.

Where did anyone say "not knowing any alternatives"? - I'd encourage any hypothetical children I may or may not have to know the alternatives, and know the Christian take on these alternatives.

Wicknight wrote: »

But being saved surely has to be a conscious rational choice, not something you accept because you simply don't know any difference?

You've made an assumption I haven't made.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not sure where you get that from. Statics show religion falling in most Western countries at a significant rate, much higher than traditional movement between religions.

Here you go on the UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/10/religion-christianity

The latest figures on church attendance in the UK show that the attendance rate is stable now at 7%. There has been an increase in the Baptist Congregations of England and Wales in the 18 - 24 age group. I partially saw some of this when I was serving in the UK on a mission team this summer. This in part involved interaction with churches in the area I was serving in.

Wicknight wrote: »

And if one is doing that I've no issue with that. That is how I was raised. Catholicism was the religion of my dad and his family.

But we both know that isn't what is being discussed here. When you make no distinction between your faith and the faith of your child (ie you are raising them Catholic and consider them Catholic) you are not sharing your faith with your child, you are giving your child your faith.

It is what is being discussed. Unless you want to assume that Seaneh's approach and my approach are about encouraging blind unthinking.

There hits a point in life where one has to repackage what they have learned from their parents and determine what is worth keeping and what isn't. If one isn't equipped with the tools to make sense of what ones parents have told them, then one will discard them. This is logical, and this is why I think you argue that a lot of people discard their beliefs.

Wicknight wrote: »

No that isn't what it is about. That is what it should be about, but a parent can and do do a lot more to ensure that his children are raised as Christians.

As I see it, from my perspective, this is what it is about. You can argue with any other Tom, Dick and Harry about their perspective, but this is mine. So yes, this is what we are talking about.

Giving children the tools, giving them the knowledge of Scripture, giving them the experience of Christianity until they are at an age to decide for themselves is exactly what we are talking about. People choose freely whether or not to discard, or keep. People who actually know what Christianity is about are in a better position to choose than those who don't.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you are committed to indoctrinating your kids you can ensure they believe anything. Look at the neo-Nazi kids being raised in America.

Yes, yes Wickie :pac: I was expecting one of these to arise

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not equating the damage of raising your kids neo-Nazis with raising them Christian, just pointing out the silliness of this idea that you cannot mold your kids to how you want them to be if you are committed to doing this. Of course you can, it is in fact relatively easy if you are happy to do it, children are predisposed to accepting what they are told by their parents and other authority figures and if you drill an ideology into them (any ideology) as absolute truth they are much much more likely to accept that because you told them to. And yes that holds for atheism as well as anything else.

Again, are you discussing what I've put across, or what some others put across? I can only give you my view.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

From a salvation point of view, it is daft. Every Christian parent will want their child to know that Jesus Christ is Lord, and to see the benefits both in this age, and in the next.

Again that isn't what we are talking about. As I said education is different from indoctrination.

Saying "I'm a Christian, I know Jesus, this is how it benefits me" is different to saying "You are a Christian, you should know Jesus, it should benefit you like this"

Jakkass wrote: »

This is what we are talking about. Raising ones children as Christians means giving their children knowledge about Christianity is.

It does, but that is not the only way to give your children knowledge about what Christianity is.

Given the example of the OP from the other thread, she and her husband should be able to raise both their children with knowledge of what Catholic and CoI are, without having to raise either of them as that faith.

They educate them by being a Catholic and a CoI member. It isn't necessary to decide your child will be a Catholic or a CoI member to do this.

If knowledge and education was all this was about the question of which denomination the children will be wouldn't be an issue.

The fact that it is highlights how wrong you are.

Jakkass wrote: »

Where did anyone say "not knowing any alternatives"? - I'd encourage any hypothetical children I may or may not have to know the alternatives, and know the Christian take on these alternatives.

Like I said this isn't what we are talking about. If you are doing everything in your power to ensure that your children are Christian why are you exposing them to other religions?

Jakkass wrote: »

You've made an assumption I haven't made.

We aren't discussing you. We are discussing the OP of the other thread and Seaneh, who said it was daft to not want to indoctrinate his children into Christianity because what they face if they reject Christianity.

Jakkass wrote: »

Here you go on the UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/10/religion-christianity

I'm not quite sure what you think church attendance demonstrates. A huge proportion of people who consider themselves "Christian" do not attend church. The increase in church attendance figures seem to draw from people who were Christian but did not go as often as they do now in the past.

Look at the figures for "non-religious"

Jakkass wrote: »

It is what is being discussed. Unless you want to assume that Seaneh's approach and my approach are about encouraging blind unthinking.

I'm not assuming your approach or Seaneh's approach are similar at all, you are it seems.

Jakkass wrote: »

There hits a point in life where one has to repackage what they have learned from their parents and determine what is worth keeping and what isn't. If one isn't equipped with the tools to make sense of what ones parents have told them, then one will discard them.

That isn't how it works, though I appreciate you really really want it to be so you don't have feel bad about things like faith schools.

In reality young adults do not rationally go over everything they have been taught by their parents picking and choosing which bits they now thing apply to them.

That is simply not how the human brains works.

Jakkass wrote: »

As I see it, from my perspective, this is what it is about. You can argue with any other Tom, Dick and Harry about their perspective, but this is mine. So yes, this is what we are talking about.

We weren't talking about your perspective, we are talking about Seaneh's, or anyone else thinks they should do everything in their power to ensure that their children remain Christians.

If you disagree with Seaneh why are you arguing with me?

Jakkass wrote: »

Giving children the tools, giving them the knowledge of Scripture, giving them the experience of Christianity until they are at an age to decide for themselves is exactly what we are talking about. People choose freely whether or not to discard, or keep. People who actually know what Christianity is about are in a better position to choose than those who don't.

Educating children as to what Christianity is does not require that you decide the religion of your child and raise them as if they had chosen this religion.

You would only do that if you want to ensure they will be this religion (ie indoctrinate them)

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, yes Wickie :pac: I was expecting one of these to arise

Because it completely nullify your point that parents can't indoctrinate their children?

Whether or not you would, or think you would, pretending that you can't is just silly.

lmaopml

I never understood the rationale behind this 'indoctrination' lark that some Atheists go on about with Christian parents. Wicknight, you say your dad 'shared' his religious beliefs with you and seem to think this was pretty cool! So do I - fair play to him! And like that, so do I with my children, I don't 'hammer' them down my 5 and 2 year olds throats, I will speak to them in an 'age appropriate' way. ....That's exactly what every Christian does...

It's also rather naive to believe that Christians are above letting their children grow up - everybody has to grow up and at that stage they will make their own decisions....Again, everybody does this ( pretty much ) I would hope of all faiths or none, afterall they are only on loan to us, they are their own little people in their own right.

I find it infinitely hard to believe that atheists parents or those atheists who may have some form of spirituality share their backgrounds with their children in a completely 'objective' way, and never ever let how they think about morals or faith or beliefs rub off......Please!

I mean they hardly start informing the children about 'all beliefs' when they are very young - besides a child is more interested in their 'parents' belief and the rhymes and reasons etc.

.....Children have a habit of asking all the awkward questions and it's all in the delivery. I choose to introduce them to my Christian / Catholic beliefs in an age appropriate way, but they are little people and I treat them with dignity too....like most parents will pass on what they value to their children, and I am not in the slightest bit concerned if they go out in the world and understand that not everybody thinks the same as mum and dad, I welcome the challenge for them...it's a good thing.

That's life...that's the test and the choices....if a child feels they have choices when they grow up and feels strong enough to make them with the added advantage of being informed, then that is about as much as anybody can do..

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

I never understood the rationale behind this 'indoctrination' lark that some Atheists go on about with Christian parents..

You don't understand it because its the nonsense position of people who desire to paint their own picture of what Christians are and do.:)

lmaopml

Yeah, and you would think that they would know better - that some people are different to other people - mind boggling that!

The ultimate self delusional and strawman arguement. Pots and Kettles come to mind.

charlemont

My mother tried it with me but it didnt work, my own son knows good from bad and iv never brought him to church...:pac::D

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I never understood the rationale behind this 'indoctrination' lark that some Atheists go on about with Christian parents. Wicknight, you say your dad 'shared' his religious beliefs with you and seem to think this was pretty cool! So do I - fair play to him! And like that, so do I with my children, I don't 'hammer' them down my 5 and 2 year olds throats, I will speak to them in an 'age appropriate' way. ....That's exactly what every Christian does...

Exactly what every Christian does? What all of them? Or are you doing the old if they don't they aren't a "real" Christian?

That clearly isn't what every Christian does, the OP on the other thread just posted a thread looking for opinions on what religion he should make his children, CoI for the girls and Catholic for the boys.

If you guys have an actual argument fair enough, but I've zero interest in this continuous nonsense that this never happens. This seems to be based purely on ignorance and wishful thinking, rather than reality.

lmaopml wrote: »

It's also rather naive to believe that Christians are above letting their children grow up

When did I ever say Christians don't let their children grow up? I've no idea what that is referring.

lmaopml wrote: »

I find it infinitely hard to believe that atheists parents or those atheists who may have some form of spirituality share their backgrounds with their children in a completely 'objective' way, and never ever let how they think about morals or faith or beliefs rub off......Please!

More nonsense. Christians never do this, but you have a hard time believing atheists don't. Really? I thought it never happened. Or is it just Christians who never do it because all Christians are perfect parents?

Of course atheist can and do indoctrinate their children to a humanists position or even an anti-theist position.

I once had the "privilege" of watching two kids in 6th class one from a Christian family and the other from a what could best be describe a hippy New Age family argue about God and neither of them had a clue what they were actually saying they were just parroting what their parents had obviously been drilling into them.

You know this happens. It is only a misplaced loyalty to what you see as outside attacks on Christianity that makes you pretend Christians never do it.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

You don't understand it because its the nonsense position of people who desire to paint their own picture of what Christians are and do.:)

So it never happens and you cannot indoctrinate your kids? Ok then



That in the fore-ground is Fred Phelps grand-daughter, clearly making he own decisions not in anyway influenced by the family she is being raised in. :rolleyes:

And just like my neo-Nazi comment I'm am not associate the damage caused by someone like Phelps with mainstream Christainity.

I'm countering the utterly ridiculous knee-jerk defense that has been mounted here that you cannot actually indoctrinate children so Christians can't be doing this, all children will rationally decide what they are taught by their parents or teachers when they hit 18, it is all some atheist plot to make Christianity look back.

Here is a nice young girl learning the truth about Young Earth Creationism from grandfather



As Creation.com put it so well

Indoctrination is necessary because young children are simply not mature enough to investigate religious matters for themselves, any more than they could figure out the multiplication tables on their own, and parents have a responsibility therefore to oversee what their children learn. To put it a little differently, parents have the responsibility to “indoctrinate” their children in the truth. On the surface, the way we are encouraging people to teach their children may look like how evolutionists indoctrinate children. But in fact it is very different, primarily because our teaching is based on God’s truth, revealed in Scripture. Also, often the evolutionists indoctrinating children are their teachers in school, not their parents. Some even make it their goal to supplant the parents’ values and beliefs in the child’s mind with their own. This is thoroughly unbiblical.

Clearly Creation.com have it wrong, since you guys much such a strong argument that you cannot actually indoctrinate your children, children are far to smart to fall for that old trick.

If you want a non-Christian example here are the totally free thinking USSR Youth Pioneers



all obviously totally freely discovering the wonders of oppressive totalitarian Communism and rationally deciding State sponsored anti-theism is the way to go.

There isn't an emoticon to express the nonsense I feel for people arguing this never happens.

oldyouth

I am a Christian by the standards that I have interpreted throughout my life. I have met many people that have held official Christian offices that I consider go against God's law. That is for them to answers to, but my sons have been raised to believe that there is a reason to have faith to guide you through life and those other cnuts will not take that away from them

lmaopml

Exactly what every Christian does? What all of them? Or are you doing the old if they don't they aren't a "real" Christian?

Give me break! I saw that 'all' myself and thought about editing, but still that's just word play and you know it - and yes I will grant that not 'all' parents are the same! That's not exactly a newsflash or I would hope not whether you are atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Jew..etc. etc. etc.

That clearly isn't what every Christian does, the OP on the other thread just posted a thread looking for opinions on what religion he should make his children, CoI for the girls and Catholic for the boys.

Oh and you have never ever seen a person torn between faith and none? Are you biased by any chance?

If you guys have an actual argument fair enough, but I've zero interest in this continuous nonsense that this never happens. This seems to be based purely on ignorance and wishful thinking, rather than reality.

Well huge applaud! Well done you made your mind up for yourself...I think you are probably one of the smartest atheists who posts on boards, but I just can't get over that you don't see the irony of that position.

When did I ever say Christians don't let their children grow up? I've no idea what that is referring.

It's not about whether 'all' Christians let their children grow up; it's about seeing that 'some' parents' don't let their children grow up on their own are immune to 'indoctrination' by virtue of atheism....and look in the mirror sometimes!

More nonsense. Christians never do this, but you have a hard time believing atheists don't. Really? I thought it never happened. Or is it just Christians who never do it because all Christians are perfect parents?

LOL, now that's post picking at it's best..lol...divert from the message and concentrate on the error in 'expression'....like you've never made one! How big!

Of course atheist can and do indoctrinate their children to a humanists position or even an anti-theist position.

Thank you! So what's this all about then?

I once had the "privilege" of watching two kids in 6th class one from a Christian family and the other from a what could best be describe a hippy New Age family argue about God and neither of them had a clue what they were actually saying they were just parroting what their parents had obviously been drilling into them.

Yep, I've seen this too. It's not something I aspire to for my little ones...and I agree whatever persuasion one is, that little uninformed parrots is not exactly the ideal! They come in all varieties though Wicknight - they are not 'exclusively' Christian!

You know this happens. It is only a misplaced loyalty to what you see as outside attacks on Christianity that makes you pretend Christians never do it.

As above! You homed in on a single word of my post without getting the context within the body, fabulous avoidence!..I never realised one must spell out ones point so utterly clear in order to be understood...

I like you Wicknight, but I think you should be a lawyer or something....

Next!

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

So it never happens and you cannot indoctrinate your kids? Ok then



That in the fore-ground is Fred Phelps grand-daughter, clearly making he own decisions not in anyway influenced by the family she is being raised in. :rolleyes:

And just like my neo-Nazi comment I'm am not associate the damage caused by someone like Phelps with mainstream Christainity.

I'm countering the utterly ridiculous knee-jerk defense that has been mounted here that you cannot actually indoctrinate children so Christians can't be doing this, all children will rationally decide what they are taught by their parents or teachers when they hit 18, it is all some atheist plot to make Christianity look back.

Here is a nice young girl learning the truth about Young Earth Creationism from grandfather



As Creation.com put it so well

Indoctrination is necessary because young children are simply not mature enough to investigate religious matters for themselves, any more than they could figure out the multiplication tables on their own, and parents have a responsibility therefore to oversee what their children learn. To put it a little differently, parents have the responsibility to “indoctrinate” their children in the truth. On the surface, the way we are encouraging people to teach their children may look like how evolutionists indoctrinate children. But in fact it is very different, primarily because our teaching is based on God’s truth, revealed in Scripture. Also, often the evolutionists indoctrinating children are their teachers in school, not their parents. Some even make it their goal to supplant the parents’ values and beliefs in the child’s mind with their own. This is thoroughly unbiblical.

Clearly Creation.com have it wrong, since you guys much such a strong argument that you cannot actually indoctrinate your children, children are far to smart to fall for that old trick.

If you want a non-Christian example here are the totally free thinking USSR Youth Pioneers



all obviously totally freely discovering the wonders of oppressive totalitarian Communism and rationally deciding State sponsored anti-theism is the way to go.

There isn't an emoticon to express the nonsense I feel for people arguing this never happens.

To echo; there isn't an emoticon to express the nonsense I feel for people arguing this never happens (( in their own homes)......and yet, don't see it knocking on their own backdoor, and are blind to their utter and very sanctified, by their very important opinon 'rightousness'..about how things 'should' be...)) for all parents world over to 'parent'. Wow, that's ambitious...

Jester Minute

JimiTime wrote: »

You don't understand it because its the nonsense position of people who desire to paint their own picture of what Christians are and do.:)

I never understood the indoctrination canard either.

The new atheists have their own fanatical indoctrination and the secular agenda in British school, for e.g., is very much contrary to Christian faith and morals. In an English school you can get free condoms and an abortion (without mummy or daddy knowing), but I don't think you're free to say the Our Father.

Something's up. If the Irish don't want this to happen here, now's the time to make a stand and make our point.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Blah blah strawman. Blah blah, Fred Phelps, Blah blah favourite emoticon:rolleyes: Blah blah 'I'm just honestly enquiring' Blah blah, 'Oh so it never happens'

Atheists like yourself DO NOT go on about extremes like Phelps when making your accusations. Catholic Schools, parents teaching their children their faith etc are what you waffle on about. In fact, THAT was the context of the conversation when this started with you and Seaneh. So stop being an @ss pretending that you are too dim to realise it and bringing up Phelps etc like it actually means something to the context of the conversation!

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that isn't what we are talking about. As I said education is different from indoctrination.

Saying "I'm a Christian, I know Jesus, this is how it benefits me" is different to saying "You are a Christian, you should know Jesus, it should benefit you like this"

One wouldn't say the latter. If one doesn't know Jesus, then one isn't a Christian at least as I would see it.

Effectively, what one would be doing would be sharing ones beliefs in a way that ones child would be adequately equipped to make an informed decision about whether or not to live a Christian lifestyle.

Wicknight wrote: »

It does, but that is not the only way to give your children knowledge about what Christianity is.

As I would see it it would involve giving ones child an effective insight into Christian teaching and practice.

Wicknight wrote: »

Given the example of the OP from the other thread, she and her husband should be able to raise both their children with knowledge of what Catholic and CoI are, without having to raise either of them as that faith.

Or take the common-denominator approach. Teach them about Christianity. I don't consider the CofI & Catholicism to be different "faiths". They are the same faith.

Wicknight wrote: »

They educate them by being a Catholic and a CoI member. It isn't necessary to decide your child will be a Catholic or a CoI member to do this.

Institutions don't really matter. If any hypothetical children I had were Christians. I wouldn't particularly care about the denomination whether Baptist, Brethren, Pentecostal etc.

Wicknight wrote: »

If knowledge and education was all this was about the question of which denomination the children will be wouldn't be an issue.

It's not about education. It's about educating towards making effective decisions.

Wicknight wrote: »

Like I said this isn't what we are talking about. If you are doing everything in your power to ensure that your children are Christian why are you exposing them to other religions?

Why wouldn't you? - If you want a fragile and weak faith which falls at the mere suggestion of an alternative, or on the basis of non-religious criticism be my guest. However, the best way to do this would be to teach about common questions that people will have about the Christian faith and give your thoughts.

Wicknight wrote: »

We aren't discussing you. We are discussing the OP of the other thread and Seaneh, who said it was daft to not want to indoctrinate his children into Christianity because what they face if they reject Christianity.

No. Seaneh said it was daft not to tell your child about Christ in a Christian context, and it is. If you honestly believed that your child would need to believe in Christ to be saved, you would help them in every way to be convinced of it. Indeed if Christ was hugely beneficial in

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you think church attendance demonstrates. A huge proportion of people who consider themselves "Christian" do not attend church. The increase in church attendance figures seem to draw from people who were Christian but did not go as often as they do now in the past.

Read the article I linked first?

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not assuming your approach or Seaneh's approach are similar at all, you are it seems.

I am because we're effectively arguing the same thing. It seems you've taken liberties with his posts.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't how it works, though I appreciate you really really want it to be so you don't have feel bad about things like faith schools.

are you serious? :pac:

What makes you think I feel bad about faith schools? I think that all parents should have this choice, or indeed to absent themselves from such schools.

Don't you love an atheist guilt-trip?

Wicknight wrote: »

In reality young adults do not rationally go over everything they have been taught by their parents picking and choosing which bits they now thing apply to them.

That is simply not how the human brains work.

The evidence goes against this in many cases. In my life, and in the lives of many other Christians I've spoken to.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you disagree with Seaneh why are you arguing with me?

I don't, you've pulled a Wickie and twisted Seaneh's post beyond recognition. I need to reel it back in

Wicknight wrote: »

Educating children as to what Christianity is does not require that you decide the religion of your child and raise them as if they had chosen this religion.

1. Give your perspective and argument.
2. Allow them to determine whether or not this is reasonable for themselves.

Wicknight wrote: »

You would only do that if you want to ensure they will be this religion (ie indoctrinate them)

Any Christian parent would want their children to be Christian. Ultimately it will be the decision of any individual. I decided to follow Christ for myself, as have millions of others. It's tripe to say that people never do this for themselves.

Wicknight wrote: »

Because it completely nullify your point that parents can't indoctrinate their children?

Not at all. Indeed, your Westboro Baptist pic only suggests that this is possible. Lumping teaching ones child about the Christian faith with this is a flaw on your part and not mine by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Conflation is only so useful.

That wasn't even my point. My point was that sharing ones faith with ones child is no different than imparting any other value. Indeed providing reasoning for such a position is even more beneficial for allowing them to have the full 100% perspective.

Your argument is lame that they should teach nothing about either and just allow to decide based on nothing whether or not they want to continue. It's not a good argument to present to a Christian who cares deeply about ones child.

Seaneh

it's this simple. My relationship with God is the single most important aspect in my life. It makes my life for having such. I couldn't imagine not knowing what I know now. I wish I'd known all my life.
I want my children to have the best lives they possibly can. I know that for them to have that life they need to have a real and meaningful relationship with God and understand what that means. I will teach then Biblical truths from as young as they can comprehend. I will do these things because I love them and I want what is best for them.
How could I not?!?? KNOWING WHAT I KNOW!

My hypothetical children will be raised as christians with a full knowledge of who Christ is and how important a relationship with him is because that is the best possible life for them.

If you have a problem with that, build a bridge and get the feck over it.

I'm not talking about telling them 'you're a christian and that's that' I'm talking about equipping them to have a relationship with their creator so that they can grow up knowing the greatest truth there is and feeling his love and knowing his plan for their lives.

I will educate them on scripture because this will enhance that relationship and help them understand what exactly it is I believe and what they as christians should believe. If after all that they choose not to be christians then so be it, I'd worry about them, it would sadden me that they weren't living the life they possibly could, but I won't disowned them.

Now. Get off your high horse.

zoomtard

We all bring our kids up inside traditions, whether explicit or implicit. Wicknight, you are proposing to bring your kids up within the western tradition that encourages us to question received authority and make use of our own reasoning. (I'd be quite happy to farm out any future zoomtards to that tradition). But it is no less a tradition formation. Your kid might reject that and join Scientology. Or they may excel in it, question its underlying assumptions and go off and get a Phd under some fancypants pomo philosopher. But there is very little difference between what you are bound to do with your beliefs and what Christians are bound to do with theirs.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Thank you! So what's this all about then?

Well at the moment this is about you guys refusing to admit that it Christian families do this, and that is before we get to whether they do it rather regularly or not.

It has never been about atheism is better than theism. Anyone can indoctrinate their children into anything, doesn't matter if they are atheists. It is down to how children are built to respond to family and authority, not the ideology you wish to impart in them. You can impart any ideology you want. We indoctrinate our children all the time to social conventions such as don't hit your friends or don't play in the road.

If a Christian wants to argue why they are justified in indoctrinating their young child into the religion that fair enough, at least that is an argument grounded in reality. I disagree but at least we are on the same page of the real world.

But to just jump in with the idea that no one does or even can do this, which seems to be your position, Jimitimes position and Jakkass's position, is just so detached from reality as to make discussion pointless.

You seem to be missing the wood for the trees here, so interested in knee jerk defenses that you ignore that happens in reality.

lmaopml wrote: »

Yep, I've seen this too. It's not something I aspire to for my little ones...and I agree whatever persuasion one is, that little uninformed parrots is not exactly the ideal! They come in all varieties though Wicknight - they are not 'exclusively' Christian!

I never claimed they were.

Again this is just more knee jerk defensiveness. First you claim it never happens then you claim others do it so stop picking on Christianity, which invalidates the first point.

lmaopml wrote: »

..I never realised one must spell out ones point so utterly clear in order to be understood...

Oh please. The single word in your post was "every" Christians. Bit of a major statement, don't you think. Especially considering it was coupled by the statement that you never understand this indoctrination lark.

Clearly you do understand this indoctrination lark as you are at pains to point out that atheists can do it as well. Yes they can.

So if we can all agree that it happens, it is easy to do, it has a profound effect on the children, perhaps we can have a proper discussion about this.

Zombrex

Rather long post Jakkass and we are just going over the same old arguments again and again so I wanted to fix on this particular comment on your and maybe we can make some head way.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. Indeed, your Westboro Baptist pic only suggests that this is possible.

Something you have tried to deny consistently.

What more do you think the parents of the Westboro Baptists did to their children that other Christian parents who teach Christianity as truth and send their kids to faith schools where they are surrounded by others who do the same, don't do to their children?

You admit (finally) that it is possible to actually indoctrinate your children to your ideology.

So given your comment that everyone makes up their own mind when they become an adult (which clearly isn't the case with these girls who are still in the church) what do you think the parents of these kids did that was beyond what Christian families do all the time?

Zombrex

zoomtard wrote: »

We all bring our kids up inside traditions, whether explicit or implicit.

Agreed.

Which makes me very puzzled and frustrated that posters (including those who thanked this post BTW) go to huge lengths they do to pretend this doesn't happen or has no effect on the choices their children make.

Or to put it another way, it is impossible not to indoctrinate your children. Pretending you can't, which is what Jakkass lmaopml and Jimitime like to do, is just a non-runner.

So bearing that in mind the question then become what do you want to indoctrinate your children to think.

There is an inconsistency in the traditional Christian answer on this forum. They (some of them at least) claim they do not want to indoctrinate their kids into Christianity, hugely increasing the odds that they will remain Christian in later life. Yet they do everything in their power, such as raising them as Christians, teaching them Christianity as certain truth and sending them to faith schools.

And the defense of this isn't the expect I want to ensure my kids are Christians, which one would expect given what they are doing.

The response is this won't indoctrinate them, it will have little effect on their choices, they can freely choose to remain in the Christian faith when they are 18, this is just "education"

That position is frankly mind boggling nonsense.

If someone wants to come up and say "Damn right I indoctrinate my kids into Christianity, I believe not being Christian leads to hell and I would never want my kids to go to hell" then I disagree with the position but at least I can respect the person is being honest and on the same planet as the rest of us.

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

I will educate them on scripture because this will enhance that relationship and help them understand what exactly it is I believe and what they as christians should believe.

So you are deciding they are Christians? And you are deciding what they should believe based on this?

Can you explain why I have numerous aggressive posters telling me you don't want to do this?

Seaneh wrote: »

Now. Get off your high horse.

The only thing I'm on a high horse about is people pretending they don't do this.

You literally just told me you will decide what your children should believe yet you have posters rallying around you telling me the idea that you are indoctrinating your kids in Christianity is an atheist fabrication.

And yes lest their be any confusion I plan to indoctrinate my kids into lots of things, such as don't hit your brother, don't play on the road, don't eat rat poison. I don't want my kids to question any of these things I want them to accept this as truth that isn't up for debate.

If you feel the same thing about Christianity why are we having this discussion?

zoomtard

Wicknight wrote: »

The response is this won't indoctrinate them, it will have little effect on their choices, they can freely choose to remain in the Christian faith when they are 18, this is just "education"

I actually completely agree (apologies to my fellow brethren). I will be raising my children not to believe that they are radically free individuals who have to "discover themselves", and where one of the options of discovery is that they might choose to follow Jesus as their friend (a narrative I see the Christians unintentionally falling into).

Instead I will be telling them in parable and poetry, in rant and polemic (oh the fun we'll have!) from their earliest days that the words of 1 Peter 2 apply to them now and not just in the future when they more self consciously appropriate them for themselves.

I don't think that this will close off their critical faculties. Discovering that Christianity was true was the beginning of a lifelong journey of critical thought for me. I don't think that this will prevent them from deciding to forsake this calling for another.

But I suppose I don't think this is "doing everything" to ensure that they remain Christians. Instead, I see it as an attempt to appropriately raise them in the tradition of their family (understood through a more ecclesially shaped lens than a 'nuclear family' lens), a tradition that is gracious and redemptive (and true).

Or in other words, if families inevitably phuck you up, I hope ours phucks up in a smart Jesus way.

philologos

Wicknight, it seems like you are actively trying to miss the point.

Wicknight wrote:

Or to put it another way, it is impossible not to indoctrinate your children. Pretending you can't, which is what Jakkass lmaopml and Jimitime like to do, is just a non-runner.

What I said wrote:

Not at all. Indeed, your Westboro Baptist pic only suggests that this is possible.

Isn't this dishonest?

Zombrex

zoomtard wrote: »

I don't think that this will close off their critical faculties. Discovering that Christianity was true was the beginning of a lifelong journey of critical thought for me. I don't think that this will prevent them from deciding to forsake this calling for another.

Well statistics and science both suggest that it will make it very unlikely that they will.

Think of it this way. If you had two kids and for some reason one of the kids was taken away and raised by a devout Muslim family, and the other was raised by you in a Christian family, the over whelming odds would be that one of your children would be Christian and the other Muslim.

Now given that both these religions cannot be true, this would suggest that the truth of the religion you are raised in has little bearing on likelihood that you will follow that religion, and a lot more to do with what your parents taught you.

The turning off of "critical faculties" is actually normally a good thing. If you tell your kid they are never go play on the road it is a good thing that they don't critically assess whether what you said has rational merit.

It is often said children are like sponges. They bond quickly with parents and to a lesser extend authority figures, and this serves a very important evolutionary purpose.

It also causes problems. There is currently an ad campaign running that tries to get parents not to smoke around their kids because statistics and science both show that if your parents smoke you are more likely to. The parents don't even have to tell them that smoking is good or anything, the children simply pick up on it because it is their parents doing it.

So while I applaud your honesty in your posts I would caution believing that by doing this your kids are still going to rationally choose Christianity as an equal pick among other religions.

Perhaps you don't want them to view it as an equal religion, and again I applaud your honesty if that is the case.

While this is the actual discussion I wanted to have on this thread at the moment I'm far more concerned about the head in the sand attitude that seems prevalent among some of your brethren.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, it seems like you are actively trying to miss the point.

Ok, lets take a step back. Perhaps I'm not giving you guys the ability to express your point properly.

Jakkass, what is your point. Please go into detail, perhaps starting what what you believe is the difference between in techniques that say the Westburough Church does that you think a typical faith school wouldn't do.

Turtwig

Ok, firstly I must admit I have only glanced through ever post and now really read them in detail. Sorry but the multi quote thing does my head in sometimes. Here's my take on it.

Young Babies are highly intelligent creatures, and children are just as intelligent but are just becoming more aware of the world. What the child learns and what he values is determined by what his parents teach him and the traditional norms of the society that he is immersed in. It's only natural that a parent will try to instill his believes and values into his own offspring. Is it an attempt of brainwashing the child into accepting a world view hell yes! Is it possible though to let a child decide his world view solely on his own? Hell no! Parents HAVE to teach their children the values they expect them to follow otherwise they might be lured by strangers, influenced by extremist fringes group or worse! The only reason why children aren't actually brainwashed to do the phelps like stuff is that the majority of society and its parents are sane, decent respectful and loving people and that's what the majority of children in this world will become. The only thing folks today should be mindful of is that the more extremist religious groups are outbreeding those of us who live in the middle threshold by huge proportions and in the future the majority might not be the saner ones. Even then, the parent should always have the right to choose what's best for their child. All that said, one thing I a deep opponent of is the view that children should be immersed in only their parents culture. The world is multicultural make sure they have some awareness, appreciated and experience of the others. Even Mr Phelps's one, though with any luck they should reject it outright. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to experience it though.

zoomtard

Wicknight wrote: »

It also causes problems. There is currently an ad campaign running that tries to get parents not to smoke around their kids because statistics and science both show that if your parents smoke you are more likely to. The parents don't even have to tell them that smoking is good or anything, the children simply pick up on it because it is their parents doing it.

Both my parents smoked as I grew up. I do not. I made a decision, rooted as best it could be in my pre-pubescent rationality, that it was not a path to human flourishing. I couldn't and wouldn't phrase it that way then. But I was using my reason as I was raised in the enlightenment tradition to do.

My point is this: While your statistics are excellently cited, your claims are not so robust. Telling us "that's not how the brain works" (as an example) is a generalised statement of faith that I wouldn't get away with in the A&A forum were it cloaked in theological language. While statistically children adopt the beliefs of their parents etc etc etc, none of us raise our children relying on or hoping for a statistically predictable result. This is actually the heart of your argument - we all raise our children hoping that they will choose and adopt and excel in those things we value.

I admit that I will be consciously raising my children in the narrative of the Christian Gospel and will be honest with them that I believe that this is not just true but the truth. I hope they conclude similarly when they come of age and I hope they far outstrip me in devotion and graciousness and flourishing.

But I still think that speaking of this as indoctrination is probably more of an unfair rhetorical trick than you are allowing. Seaneh and Jackass are eminently reasonable and likeable men. If you were willing to concede that we are all trapped inside the traditions we inherit (and hence indoctrination is more a question of emphasis rather than faith-conviction), they'd probably admit that they intend to brainwash, I mean, raise, their kids as Christians.

Zombrex

zoomtard wrote: »

I admit that I will be consciously raising my children in the narrative of the Christian Gospel and will be honest with them that I believe that this is not just true but the truth. I hope they conclude similarly when they come of age and I hope they far outstrip me in devotion and graciousness and flourishing.

But I still think that speaking of this as indoctrination is probably more of an unfair rhetorical trick than you are allowing.

Its not.

Your children are instinctively unquestioning in the sense that we would use that term as an adult when given information by parents or authority figures. That is a very good thing, it serves a very good evolutionary purpose of allowing a parent to very quickly instill important information to their children. If your children had to rationally and critically assess everything they learned you would have 45 year olds barely able to talk.

Ultimately it greatly increases the odds that your children will actually survive. Imagine if saying to them that playing on the road was dangerous had no effect on them. Or saying stay away from the place where the lions are.

zoomtard wrote: »

Seaneh and Jackass are eminently reasonable and likeable men. If you were willing to concede that we are all trapped inside the traditions we inherit (and hence indoctrination is more a question of emphasis rather than faith-conviction), they'd probably admit that they intend to brainwash, I mean, raise, their kids as Christians.

Brainwash isn't the same as indoctrinate. As I said we cannot help but indoctrinate our children that is how they are built.

Your kids do not tell the difference between mommy saying Jesus Christ died for you sins and i before e except after c. They simply don't.

Viewing religious information as some how different to other information we don't care about our children simply accepting, is simply not how our children view this.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Which makes me very puzzled and frustrated that posters (including those who thanked this post BTW) go to huge lengths they do to pretend this doesn't happen or has no effect on the choices their children make.

Or to put it another way, it is impossible not to indoctrinate your children. Pretending you can't, which is what Jakkass lmaopml and Jimitime like to do, is just a non-runner.

Stop pretending to be stupid. When someone like yourself uses the term 'indoctrinate' it is done in a pejorative sense. It is purely negative. You know this, yet you pretend your 'frustrated' etc. Cut the bullsh1t, and start being honest. If we use 'indoctrinate' in the non-pejorative, teaching or bestowing then you know quite well that folk have not an issue.

If its this innocent, 'we all indoctrinate and its impossible not to' then it would not be used as an accusation by so many of you. So how about stopping the games, and just being honest for a change.

zoomtard

Ah right Wicknight. I do actually suspect you have come against a bunch of especially deaf readers in this thread. I think we all assumed (ala Jimitime) that you understood indoctrination in faith terms and as perjorative. What you are really arguing is that all of us indoctrinate in the sense of installing axiomatic foundations (on faith, road-safety, table-manners etc) in parenting. I'd agree with that, but choose different language that wasn't tainted by the latter-day buffoon Dawkins.

But I suspect that a kid tests out i before e except after c and finds it to be trustworthy. I can't testify to ever testing out the validity of the claim that Jesus died for my sins because I was never told it. But I know a few 6 and 7 year olds and a few12 or 13 year olds who are currently testing it out.

We receive the foundational myths (used technically) of our tradition axiomatically. I agree. But that doesn't mean that those axioms are not open to increasing investigation as the years go on and we become masters of our tradition and not just apprentices.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Stop pretending to be stupid. When someone like yourself uses the term 'indoctrinate' it is done in a pejorative sense. It is purely negative.

One wonders why I bother posting here at all when you guys seem brilliant at telling me what I think or believe :rolleyes:

JimiTime wrote: »

You know this, yet you pretend your 'frustrated' etc.

I assure you it is not pretend.

Jakkass and your posts are maddeningly frustrating, this knee jerk disagree-with-what-ever-has-been-said-without-bothering- to-understand-what-is-being-said style posting that seems endemic on this forum.

You guys argue and argue and argue until you realize I wasn't actually saying what you think I was saying and it is established that yes actually you agree with all my starting assertion and we are back at square one.

It would save us all a lot of time if you actually just bothered to read my posts.

JimiTime wrote: »

If we use 'indoctrinate' in the non-pejorative, teaching or bestowing then you know quite well that folk have not an issue.

Have you actually read any of my posts so far?

I mean actually read them Jimi, not selectively picked out a handful of words and then jumped to a conclusion that what ever I said it must have been bad (OMG he said INDOCTRINATE, quick disagree disagree disagree!!)

JimiTime wrote: »

If its this innocent, 'we all indoctrinate and its impossible not to' then it would not be used as an accusation by so many of you.

You clearly have never understood what the actual accusation is

When you actually have a point to make get back to me.

Zombrex

zoomtard wrote: »

We receive the foundational myths (used technically) of our tradition axiomatically. I agree. But that doesn't mean that those axioms are not open to increasing investigation as the years go on and we become masters of our tradition and not just apprentices.

No it doesn't. I means they are much less likely to be open to increasing investigation as the years go on.

I say that because these individual exceptions and one off cases (eg your parents smoked but you didn't) get rather tiresome, particular in light of the wealth of scientific and statistical evidence that demonstrate the opposite of your position.

If I found a rocket scientist who grew up in Ballymun that doesn't mean that the idea that deprivation and poverty has no negative effect on education levels.

The paradox of this whole argument is that everyone here knows that if raising a child as a Christian didn't greatly increase the odds that they will remain a Christian in later life no one would do it. You would simply hand your 18 year old a Bible and say Here have a read of this, its pretty good. There are a whole range of things important to adult life that we don't bother teaching our kids about until they are older, such as political parties. The idea that someone would raise their child Labour is ridiculous.

All these institutions, from 1st communions to faith schools, exist precisely because the mantra "Get them while they are young" works. It works for anything, irrespective of its truth or how good or bad it is. It works for maths education and Stalinism. It works for sex education and Scientology. It works for the KKK and the Girl Scouts.

You all seem to think that your kids stay Christian because at when ever 18, 19, they take what has been told them, rationally assess it and conclude independently that it is true. And you seem to think they do this because it is true, or obviously true.

That is fine for Christianity, but doesn't explain how the exact same process happens in all other religions, religions that can't actually be true if your religion is true. Our Muslim men all concluding that Islam is true independently to being raised as a Muslim? Or Hindus? Are Scientology? Are Mormons?

zoomtard

Wicknight wrote: »

There are a whole range of things important to adult life that we don't bother teaching our kids about until they are older, such as political parties. The idea that someone would raise their child Labour is ridiculous.

I just found out your parents didn't actively campaign for Labour. And I just proved the example to be false.

Wicknight wrote:

You all seem to think that your kids stay Christian because at when ever 18, 19, they take what has been told them, rationally assess it and conclude independently that it is true. And you seem to think they do this because it is true, or obviously true.

Who is telling who what they think now? I know for a fact that the arduous journey of occupying the tradition by seeking to inhabit it starts much earlier than 18 or 19. Aside from that, I think we agree.

Wicknight wrote:

That is fine for Christianity, but doesn't explain how the exact same process happens in all other religions, religions that can't actually be true if your religion is true. Our Muslim men all concluding that Islam is true independently to being raised as a Muslim? Or Hindus? Are Scientology? Are Mormons?

People can be convinced and wrong. Like you are. The process, as you admit, happens as much in secular humanist homes as in Presbyterian homes.

Zombrex

zoomtard wrote: »

I just found out your parents didn't actively campaign for Labour. And I just proved the example to be false.

Toche

zoomtard wrote: »

People can be convinced and wrong. Like you are. The process, as you admit, happens as much in secular humanist homes as in Presbyterian homes.

Agreed, the problem is it doesn't happen very much.

Again this isn't a atheism is better than theism thing. If you go onto the A&A you are bound to run into someone who says something like "I don't want my kid believing in a delusion, I'm going to teach him there is no gods" There is no "and leave it up for him to decide later in life" with that, atheists who say this mean their kids will know god doesn't exist and all religions are nonsense in the same way they know that rat poison is dangerous. They ain't going to be testing that out for themselves.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

One wonders why I bother posting here at all when you guys seem brilliant at telling me what I think or believe :rolleyes:

I'll leave it to YOU to tell us if your use of the word indoctrination is pejorative or not.

Wicknight wrote:

It is the responsibility of parents to teach and inform, not to indoctrinate or preach.

PDN Said: It is laughable to insinuate that allowing parents to raise their children in a particular faith is somehow incompatible with a secular society.

You replied:
Its incompatible with respecting the child. Secular society is not the issue, bad parenting is.


And another:

It is simply not a good idea to teach children that a particular religion or religious outlook is correct over any other. It is not fair on the children.

You'll find the above quote here

In fact, for the whole thread you use 'indoctrinate' in the negative sense. You also go on about raising children in the Christian faith, or any religion, is bad parenting.

So how about you cut the rubbish about you not using 'indoctrinate' in a negative sense.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

Well at the moment this is about you guys refusing to admit that it Christian families do this, and that is before we get to whether they do it rather regularly or not.

Wicknight you and I and everybody else posting around here know that some parents will teach their children differently than others what 'truth' is, even what morals they impart may be very different from one family to the next. So what exactly is your point? Are you saying there is a better way? One size fits all approach or something? I don't get what you have a problem with tbh...

It has never been about atheism is better than theism. Anyone can indoctrinate their children into anything, doesn't matter if they are atheists. It is down to how children are built to respond to family and authority, not the ideology you wish to impart in them. You can impart any ideology you want. We indoctrinate our children all the time to social conventions such as don't hit your friends or don't play in the road.

If a Christian wants to argue why they are justified in indoctrinating their young child into the religion that fair enough, at least that is an argument grounded in reality. I disagree but at least we are on the same page of the real world.

But to just jump in with the idea that no one does or even can do this, which seems to be your position, Jimitimes position and Jakkass's position, is just so detached from reality as to make discussion pointless.

I'm sorry but I think you are totally misrepresenting or misinterpreting what has been said. I don't know if it's deliberate or not. Are you in fact looking for Christians to 'justify' why they choose to bring their children up knowing Jesus? ( that's a different thread - so start it ) or are you arguing that some Christians are more inclined to be heavy handed with the 'indoctrination' than others and this is bad bad bad parenting...? I think you would like to argue the former myself, and it's being nicely but thinly guised as concern for the poor children. Pull the other one...

You see - and you admit yourself, you don't have to be a Christian to be a shyte parent or a fabulous one. I'm sure there are many great Atheist parents out there..lol..

You seem to be missing the wood for the trees here, so interested in knee jerk defenses that you ignore that happens in reality.

Eh? 'Reality' is that we choose to bring our children up and introduce them to Jesus. This is 'reality'. Are you saying we shouldn't? and if so why?

I never claimed they were.

Again this is just more knee jerk defensiveness. First you claim it never happens then you claim others do it so stop picking on Christianity, which invalidates the first point.

Wicknight, I have no idea where you see knee jerk 'defensiveness'. All I see is 'incredulity' at the idea that you don't see what is a plainly reasonable way of parenting, and that people of every denomination and none are likely to do it their own way! The reason why 'pot and kettle' has been mentioned is merely to point this out.

Oh please. The single word in your post was "every" Christians. Bit of a major statement, don't you think. Especially considering it was coupled by the statement that you never understand this indoctrination lark.

Clearly you do understand this indoctrination lark as you are at pains to point out that atheists can do it as well. Yes they can.

So if we can all agree that it happens, it is easy to do, it has a profound effect on the children, perhaps we can have a proper discussion about this.

Ok, well maybe we're getting somewhere so. Yes, if you like to use the word 'indoctrinate' so be it....We pass on our values and beliefs to our children. Some may have a profound effect on the children some may not - but almost everybody I'm sure would agree that exposing children when they are older and can understand that people come in different shades of belief is an unavoidable and certainly not a bad thing.

Still what angle are you going for here? Is there a better way for all people, no matter their persuasion to raise their children? The 'Wicknight' way? Or is this actually about faith schools or what?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

So you insist on the dishonesty then?

The "dishonesty" you insist I'm practicing exists only in your mind and your misplaced preconceptions of what you assumed I was saying, despite words from me that directly counter these preconceptions.

As I find myself regularly stating on this forum, I can only be responsible for what I say, not what you guys assume I must mean or the conclusions you reach from these assumptions.

For someone who likes to complain (often with justification) about dishonest representation of what is being said you don't seem to turn that critical eye on yourself too often.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'll leave it to YOU to tell us if your use of the word indoctrination is pejorative or not.

Case in point, now who is being dishonest. Did you read that post or just Google it?

Throughout the entire post the indoctrination referred to indoctrinating the child into the parents religion. That was the bad thing.

If you had bothered to quote the line before the one you quoted this context would have been crystal clear

You could equally find a Christian like your daughter annoyed that she wasn't exposed to a religion like Islam earlier, and might claim that such exposure would have helped her young life.

It is the responsibility of parents to teach and inform, not to indoctrinate or preach.

I notice you went all the way back to 2007 for that one. Was that perhaps because all the other results on Google or Boards.ie search had me being crystal clear about my position on indoctrination (that all parents do it and that it often serves a valuable purpose) and you were trying to find one that was ambiguous so you could support your assertions?

In fact, for the whole thread you use 'indoctrinate' in the negative sense.

For the whole thread I use indoctrinating children into their parents religion in the negative sense. Some thing you would understand if you add actually read the posts in the thread.

You also go on about raising children in the Christian faith, or any religion, is bad parenting.

I don't "also" go on about that, that is the central point, that is the indoctrination I'm complaining about.

So how about you cut the rubbish about you not using 'indoctrinate' in a negative sense.

How about you stop jumping to misplaced conclusions and then trawling over posts from 3 years ago trying to save face.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

Agreed, the problem is it doesn't happen very much.

Again this isn't a atheism is better than theism thing. If you go onto the A&A you are bound to run into someone who says something like "I don't want my kid believing in a delusion, I'm going to teach him there is no gods" There is no "and leave it up for him to decide later in life" with that, atheists who say this mean their kids will know god doesn't exist and all religions are nonsense in the same way they know that rat poison is dangerous. They ain't going to be testing that out for themselves.

Yes, but what exactly doesn't happen very much? and where?

travelguru

Don't teach them about any religion whether to believe or not...teach them to question everything and if told something to ask for proof that that has happened or existed.

There is no proof of any God, it is an old story book that keeps getting passed down the same way the Tooth Fairy and Santa are passed onto us until a certain age. And we all know about the Tooth Fairy and Santa!!

lmaopml

^^^ Inspirational new and profound ^^^

See? It does happen - very much. The irony here is that not one Christian has told another or an Atheist that their way is 'bestest' and your way of parenting is dreadful, most of us believe in freedom religious or otherwise for everybody.

There is only one form of 'indoctrination' that seems to posit itself as the only 'ideal' way of parenting! That's actually quite scary...

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

but almost everybody I'm sure would agree that exposing children when they are older and can understand that people come in different shades of belief is an unavoidable and certainly not a bad thing.

I'm sure almost everybody would agree with that but what the heck does that have to do with the way Christians typically raise their children?

Before I roll out a ton of evidence contradicting such a position I should probably clarify it is your position, are you saying that Christians do not expose their children to Christianity until they are "older and can understand". And what age would that be for you?

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure almost everybody would agree with that but what the heck does that have to do with the way Christians typically raise their children?

Before I roll out a ton of evidence contradicting such a position I should probably clarify it is your position, are you saying that Christians do not expose their children to Christianity until they are "older and can understand". And what age would that be for you?

I said that I choose to raise my children within the framework of my belief system....and am not shy about saying it either. That means from the time they start asking questions and can understand what their mum is saying to them in an age appropriate way. No I don't start confusing them with - 'mum believes this but many don't' when they are three or something....I merely say, 'Mum believes this...'...

I am saying that I reserve the right to do so.

I am saying that I believe that those children brought up in an Atheist home will invariably ask many of the same questions that mine do and that they will get an 'Atheist' whether they are spiritual atheists or no slanted answer to their questions.

I am saying that they 'should' have the right to do so.

What are you arguing about?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I said that I choose to raise my children within the framework of my belief system....and am not shy about saying it either.

Define "within the framework of my belief system"?

Do you say to them that they are Christians?

If you do you are indoctrinating them into your religion.

If you don't great, but you are not representative of something the vast majority of Christians in Ireland who have children making Holy Communion aged 7 or 8, an age I think we can all agree a child does not understand what they are actually committing to.

Heck just look at the census. There are 820,000 under 14 year olds in this country down as a religion in the census. You think they actually are Catholic? Or Protestant? Or Jewish? Or do you think their parents said they were?

So why are we having this silly back and forth that this doesn't happen? Why can't we get on to the actual question from the original post over whether should it happen?

lmaopml

I don't know about your little ones Wicknight, but my children are fairly bright. I never 'assume' that they don't understand anything, in fact my 5 year old often surprises me with just how much he takes in....and yes, even 'questions'..

Yes, I do by your 'standards' indoctrinate my children into my Catholic faith. I had the two of them baptised and my little one will make his Holy Communion and if mum has anything to do with it, will have an understanding of what's happening.

By the way, making ones Holy Communion is receiving Jesus to a Catholic for the first time in a real and present way - Making ones 'Confirmation' is a renewal of baptismal vows and usually happens at the age of 13 - this would be seen as more of a 'commitment' to the faith.

Even so - there are very many who fall away from the faith of their parents and some who don't. Look around this website to find them, it's rather obvious that the 'indoctrination' didn't 'stick' so much that it limited their 'choice'! So what's the problem?

Are you saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to pass on their faith? or 'lack of' and all that entails? What should they do to be perfect?

lmaopml

Right, you added to your post that time with the census stuff...

Wicknight, would you prefer it if all children were marked as 'no religion' on the census form? and if so why? Do you think they are being damaged or something?

..or is the census damaging to the atheist worldview?

I answer the questions for my little ones in the same way I answer the question about whether they are male or female - However, I am profoundly aware that they may decide 'not' to describe themselves when they are adults and filling in a census themselves, in the same way as I am describing them when they are in my charge - and I'm ok with that because there is little I can do about it. So what's the problem?

Do atheists mark - 'no religion' for their lo's? should they even be asked?

Why? is there a problem with the question? or a problem with the answer?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't know about your little ones Wicknight, but my children are fairly bright.

It has nothing to do with being bright.

Your children are human I would imagine, and as thus have an innate instinct to accept as true concepts and ideas they are told by their parents and other authority figures are true without serious critical assessment or evaluation.

It is what for thousands of years kept human children a live long enough to become adults.

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, I do by your 'standards' indoctrinate my children into my Catholic faith. I had the two of them baptised and my little one will make his Holy Communion and if mum has anything to do with it, will have an understanding of what's happening.

You mean what is happening to him.

You decide he would be Christian, and you decide he would be baptized and you decide he would make his Holy Communion, all while he was a child and too young to understand or appreciate what any of this actually meant.

Why given that you do this have you spend huge amounts of time and energy arguing that Christians don't do this, either at all or in general?

This is the way these discussions always go on this forum. As I said to Jimitime

You guys argue and argue and argue until you realize I wasn't actually saying what you think I was saying and it is established that yes actually you agree with all my starting assertion and we are back at square one.

lmaopml wrote: »

By the way, making ones Holy Communion is receiving Jesus to a Catholic for the first time in a real and present way - Making ones 'Confirmation' is a renewal of baptismal vows and usually happens at the age of 13 - this would be seen as more of a 'commitment' to the faith.

Did your 7 year old ask to make his Holy Communion, demonstrate a full and adult understanding of what that means and the options open to him? Did he ask to be baptized demonstrate a full and adult understanding of what that means and the options open to him?

lmaopml wrote: »

Even so - there are very many who fall away from the faith of their parents

No actually there isn't. The vast majority of people remain in the faith their parents picked for them, as most likely your children will (whether you had picked Christianity, Islam or Scientology)

lmaopml wrote: »

Are you saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to pass on their faith? or 'lack of' and all that entails? What should they do to be perfect?

I'm saying Christians shouldn't
a) pretend this doesn't happen which you and others have done for most of this discussion
and
b) pretend that their children are freely choosing their religion with full understanding and appreciation.

lmaopml wrote: »

Wicknight, would you prefer it if all children were marked as 'no religion' on the census form? and if so why? Do you think they are being damaged or something?

So your position has gone from this never happens, to this sometimes happens but not a lot, to this happens all the time but it isn't damaging.

The thing I would prefer the most Imaopml is that people are upfront and honest about this topic.

As for the census in the interests of accuracy yes I would prefer if children were marked as 'no religion' or left off the question at all. A 5 year old isn't picking his religion, any more than he is picking is political party.

My question to you is why don't you agree with this? Do you honestly think a 5 year old can in full understanding choose to be a Muslim? Or a Scientologist? Or a supporter of Fine Gael?

lmaopml wrote: »

However, I am profoundly aware that they may decide 'not' to describe themselves when they are adults and filling in a census themselves

Given that they are not adults they haven't decided to describe themselves as Catholic.

So why are you describing them as Catholic? Is it because you have decided they are Catholics? In which case how is this not indoctrinating your children into the religion of their parents?

lmaopml wrote: »

in the same way as I am describing them when they are in my charge - and I'm ok with that because there is little I can do about it. So what's the problem?

There is little you can do about describing your children as Catholics?

You don't think someones parents viewing them as Catholics as children will have any bearing on whether they view themselves as Catholics when they get older?

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm saying Christians shouldn't
a) pretend this doesn't happen which you and others have done for most of this discussion
and
b) pretend that their children are freely choosing their religion with full understanding and appreciation.

a) nobody is pretending anything of the sort. Strawman. There is only one person saying there is a perfect way around here and it aint the Christians.

b) children don't 'choose' a lot of things because they are wards of their parents who make decisions on their behalf the best way they know how and within their own belief or lack of system.

Are you saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to do so? If you are, I respectfully disagree with you and I think you are being monumentally presumtious and generalising about an entire block of people who parent, and distracting yourself from the rather obvious point that Atheists choose 'Atheist' methods of explaining the big questions to their lo's.

If you believe the latter is 'correct' - good on you, you are free to do so...

If you believe the former is 'incorrect' - than good luck running that dictatorship!

Zombrex

The analogy (that wasn't made by me first, though I wish it was) with political parties is the one that highlights this point the clearest.

If a parent brought their 7 year old along to a Labour meeting and made him go through some sort of initiation rite, proclaiming that he is now a Labour supporter, people would think that is creepy and weird.

Why?

Because we recognize that a 7 year old has no proper notion of what Labour is and thus it is clear that they are not choosing to do this, they are doing it because their parents are making them or at the very least strongly encouraging them to.

We think this in virtually all aspects of life. If you see a father dragging his kid out to the tennis court every day with the idea that the kid wants to be a pro some day we think "Poor kid" because none of us believe the 7 year old has any notion what that actually means, we think creepy parent.

For some reason, probably due to great PR on the part of religion, the blinkers come on with relation to religion.

We are so used to it we think it is normal when a parent tells us their kid is making their 1st Communion, rather than thinking Wow, taht is a bit creepy. Religion has done such a good job convincing us that it is part of the family that we turn a blind eye to the nonsense of it all.

This is the "free pass" Dawkins talks about.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

a) nobody is pretending anything of the sort. Strawman. There is only one person saying there is a perfect way around here and it aint the Christians.

You were pretending it doesn't happen, Jimi was pretending it doesn't happen and Jakkass was pretending it doesn't happen.

That is why after 4 pages we are still at square one.

lmaopml wrote: »

b) children don't 'choose' a lot of things because they are wards of their parents who make decisions on their behalf the best way they know how and within their own belief or lack of system.

Exactly

So why this nonsense that your children are freely deciding to be Christians? They aren't, you are deciding this for them.

lmaopml wrote: »

Are you saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to do so?

I'm saying parents shouldn't want to do this if they are genuinely interested in their children choosing Christianity when they are actually old enough to do this.

I suspect you yourself realize the how creepy this actually is, which is why you are going to huge lengths to skirt around the issue and the reality of what is actually happening.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

You were pretending it doesn't happen, Jimi was pretending it doesn't happen and Jakkass was pretending it doesn't happen.

That is why after 4 pages we are still at square one.

Nobody is 'pretending' that adults don't bring up their children using their own moral compass and beliefs or lack of. In fact, we stated it very clearly that we do, both Christians and Atheists alike.

Exactly

So why this nonsense that your children are freely deciding to be Christians? They aren't, you are deciding this for them.

Likewise you will decide many things for your children? and when they get older they will decide for themselves...You are presuming that Christian children are incapable of this yes? Big presumption. You yourself infer that atheism is growing steadily in the Western world, are all these children brought up by 'atheist' parents? No - they are making their free choices when they are old enough to make them.

I'm saying parents shouldn't want to do this if they are genuinely interested in their children choosing Christianity when they are actually old enough to do this.

I suspect you yourself realize the how creepy this actually is, which is why you are going to huge lengths to skirt around the issue and the reality of what is actually happening.

I'm skirting nothing. I am being very very honest. I told you I reserve the right to bring up my children within my belief system very very clearly. You are making a massive presumption that I and people like me are damaging their critical thinking processes forever. That's baloney.

I see nothing creepy about it at all - in fact I find the fact that Dawkins and his ilk use an analogy of a childs 'politics' on par with describing a childs 'faith' as decidedly creepy, disingenuous and totally lacking in any kind of understanding of the difference between passing on a faith in God and ones political leanings and the 'weight' of both to a parent and what's important to parents to pass on - as very dishonest, creepy and rather sterile.

Scratch the surface of this opinion and you see the naked truth that Dawkins and his ilk don't believe in religious freedom, and do believe that they are rather perfect in every way..lol...

Forgive me if I disagree that parents should be free to parent the way they see fit whatever persuasion they may be, and free to describe their children as 'Christian' when they are brought up in the 'Christian' faith - same as 'Atheists' are free to mark 'no religion' for their children.

Wicknight do you think that Christians don't think critically? Do you think Christianity is damaging in some way? Why so irked? I'm not irked about Ann down the road who may be a spiritual atheist and teaches her children why and how to be a spiritual person but still atheist...