Doing everything your power to ensure your children are Christian

Zombrex

Just to clarify if any mods are poking around, when I say "nonsense" of it all I don't mean religion or the truth of religion.

I mean the idea that a 7 year old has the understanding to determine the truth of any particular religion.

I would hope some, though I imagine not a lot, of religious people would agree with this.

This is also not in anyway exclusive to religion, but as I said in the other post we would think it odd and a bit creepy if parents were doing this to children in any other aspect with regard to concepts that are traditionally considered adult decisions.

The notion of a 7 year old Obama supporter is weird. We would just think that is the son of an Obama supporter. If the parent said "No no, he really does support Obama's tax policy" would think no, that is just creepy.

That is no comment on Obama and his policies, it is a comment on the parent who thinks there 7 year old decided to be an Obama supporter

drkpower

This particular topic always baffles me. If a belief in God is central to your belief system, i dont see why you wouldnt bring your children up in that belief. I believe strongly in the merits of a western democratic political & legal system and i intend to educate my children as to the merits of that system and my particular take on it. I wouldnt feel bad about that.

The key is that you do not close your children off from competing ideas and that you welcome and encourage their own search for their particular truth and views.

I appreciate that religon is a particularly unique animal (in that its all nonsense, of course;)) but as long as religous parents encourage their children to explore other religious and non-religious ideas when they are older, i dont see the problem in 'bringing them up religious'.

lmaopml

drkpower wrote: »

This particular topic always baffles me. If a belief in God is central to your belief system, i dont see why you wouldnt bring your children up in that belief. I believe strongly in the merits of a western democratic political & legal system and i intend to educate my children as to the merits of that system and my particular take on it. I wouldnt feel bad about that.

The key is that you do not close your children off from competing ideas and that you welcome and encourage their own search for their particular truth and views.

I appreciate that religon is a particularly unique animal (in that its all nonsense, of course;)) but as long as religous parents encourage their children to explore other religious and non-religious ideas when they are older, i dont see the problem in 'bringing them up religious'.

Thank you drkpower! That is refreshingly honest and 'real'!

Aside from the small print, I myself would agree with those values..

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

I'm going to roll it back a bit, and compare the method I've described with the Westboro Baptist Church as an example.

The difference is stark and obvious. The way I've suggested is to have parents teach their children about their faith, and the reason why they hold it with gentleness and respect throughout their lives, and also to give their children an insight into Christian living and experience.

In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church for all intents and purposes, there has been much more than this in respect to using their children in protests and other such things.

There is a difference between saying:

This is what I believe, and I want to share this with you as your dad because I think it is really important for living and realising one will have to let go and let them come to their own reasoning. You hope that they will come to believe in Christ, but you can't be 100% certain.

You have no other choice to believe anything else because I said so.

The latter hasn't been expressed in Seaneh's or my posts.

lmaopml

..or lmaopml's...

lmaopml

:pac::D

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Firstly, Jackass answered the question to this whole thing with his opening line:

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.

Enough said really. That should be good enough for you to understand the perspective.

Now to your quote above. You have a knack of muddying the waters in debate. NOBODY said that Christian parents don't bestow their faith, yet you went off on one about how thats what was said. Bringing in Phelps etc.

You proceed to whinge about how frustrating it is that Christians don't believe that they 'indoctrinate'. The charge against you is the manner of your use of 'indoctrinate' and all its negative connotations which come in accusation form. When it is used by people like you, its never something to be admitted to by a decent Christian, as it is so loaded with atheist muddle-mindedness and usually anti-theist pig headedness. If we were in a discussion with honest people simply using definitive rather than pejorative language, then the word has no issues. Thanks to its use by people who wish to pound religion, the word creates a picture of a prison-like camp for warping fragile minds. THAT, is why I'll never let someone like you throw it at someone like me willy nilly. As that thread I quoted already testifies, when you throw the word around in the context of Christianity, its not a compliment or in any way positive.

You don't seem to turn that critical eye on yourself too often.

You'd be wrong.

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.

And whats the context here? Chicken farming?

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

I followed that entire thread, never mind that post, and I know the context.The fact of the matter is, we do not use the word indoctrinate in a positive sense in modern culture. We use words like bestow, imbue, teach etc. 'Indoctrinate' has a pejorative impact. It paints a negative picture, which is why its used by folk like you when talking about Christians. Thats the dishonesty of this whole thing. Pretending that it is a valid word etc. We all know if we get out the dictionary, that it is certainly valid to describe a parent teaching their child the ways of Christ etc. But in the context of its use in modern life, it has a life beyond the dictionary. YOU KNOW THIS, but you insist on carrying on a semantic arguement. YOU KNOW its a pejorative term, so THAT is why I am telling you to stop playing dumb about it.

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?

No.

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

Well Jackass' opening line, quoted for you at the top of this post is all that needs to be said for any half wit to understand how it is of huge importance for a Christian to teach their child the truth of Christ. In fact, it would be wholly irresponsible, and bad parenting to do otherwise.

This answer will also answer any questions you may have on why Christians share the good news of the kingdom with others. Its not that difficult to understand.

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

Yeah, well my daddy is bigger than your daddy.

zoomtard

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

They can be doing it because that is the tradition they are raised in but I can introduce you to plenty of children who know exactly what they are about as Christians. I basically agree with everything you are saying now Wicky, but you just need to factor in the freedom of the hypothetical 7 year old who expresses a description of a very real spiritual life in a way that it is impossible for a 7 year old to own their own political life.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm going to roll it back a bit, and compare the method I've described with the Westboro Baptist Church as an example.

That isn't the question I asked you though. Your theoretical ideal of what a Christian should do (emphasis on the education, not the indoctrination) isn't what there posters here are describing.

Baptizing your child sending them to a faith school, telling them they are Christian, telling them what they should believe, making them do 1st Communion because that is what Catholics do etc is not parents teaching kids about the parents faith? It is not what lmaopml or Seaneh are describing.

Do you agree with that? If so perhaps we can make progress.

Jakkass wrote: »

In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church for all intents and purposes, there has been much more than this in respect to using their children in protests and other such things.

And what is the difference in terms of indoctrination between using your kids in protests and say 1st Communion? Or simply bringing your kids to church each Sunday because you tell your kids they are Christian and should go to church?

To clarify I mean in terms of the effect it has on what the children believe, I'm not comparing the actual act of church with a protest at a funeral.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a difference between saying:

This is what I believe, and I want to share this with you as your dad because I think it is really important for living and realising one will have to let go and let them come to their own reasoning. You hope that they will come to believe in Christ, but you can't be 100% certain.

You have no other choice to believe anything else because I said so.

Seaneh has said he is going to do everything he can to help his kids understand "what they as christians should believe"

What they as Christians should believe.

Perhaps he didn't mean it like that, but it is what he said. Can you explain what the difference between that and the second thing you said is?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

..or lmaopml's...

Educating your children about your faith doesn't involve any action on their part as if they were Christians. It doesn't require baptizm, it doesn't require you saying they are Christian (they aren't, you are and all you are doing is educating them about your Chrisitanity until they are old enough to choose, right?) it doesn't require things like 1st communion etc

You go from what Jakkass is talking about (which I most agree with) to what I'm talking about when you decide your children are Christians and then start making decisions of what they should believe and do based on that.

Which you have happily admitted you have done and demanded to know what the damage of doing this was, while saying you are only being honest.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

We all know if we get out the dictionary, that it is certainly valid to describe a parent teaching their child the ways of Christ etc. But in the context of its use in modern life, it has a life beyond the dictionary. YOU KNOW THIS, but you insist on carrying on a semantic arguement. YOU KNOW its a pejorative term, so THAT is why I am telling you to stop playing dumb about it.

And YOU KNOW you misunderstood what I was saying, tried to score cheap points with quotes from 2007, failed, looked stupid and now are backtracking.

I've zero interest in playing this stupid game with you Jimi.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

Educating your children about your faith doesn't involve any action on their part as if they were Christians. It doesn't require baptizm, it doesn't require you saying they are Christian (they aren't, you are and all you are doing is educating them about your Chrisitanity until they are old enough to choose, right?) it doesn't require things like 1st communion etc

You go from what Jakkass is talking about (which I most agree with) to what I'm talking about when you decide your children are Christians and then start making decisions of what they should believe and do based on that.

Which you have happily admitted you have done and demanded to know what the damage of doing this was, while saying you are only being honest.

Wicknight, seriously I have no idea what your point is....you seem to be engaging in word play and pedantry.

If you think we're damaging children fair enough, make that point - If you think Christians shouldn't bring up their children as little Christians, make that point too and explain why...

..but it's very apparent that you know really very little about what being a Christian entails and raising a family in that tradition.

Pff, any tradition... even yours Wicknight..

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't the question I asked you though. Your theoretical ideal of what a Christian should do (emphasis on the education, not the indoctrination) isn't what there posters here are describing.

Great. I can only vouch for my opinion.

Let me sum up for you what my faith school experience in the Church of Ireland was like:

1. Primary - Local minister came in to speak about Jesus in the Gospels for 20 minutes on a Friday morning. We said the Lord's prayer to start off the day in the classroom. Apart from this we had a Christmas and end of year service at the Church of Ireland church, which parents could opt out from.

Formation for Catholic rites such as First Communion took place in the school building on request from the local Catholic church for RCC families in the school only after school hours.

By the by, from what I've heard the CofI actively try to take in 33% of attendees who are not from CofI background.

2. Secondary - Morning chapel for 20 minutes every day which included announcements, as well as a hymn, a short reading from the 100 Minute Bible, a prayer and a short talk from the chaplain. Weeks the chaplain wasn't around some of the other staff filled in including a humorous interpretation of the Ten Commandments from the head. One week a R.E teacher of a Pentecostal orientation spoke about divorce and relationships / sexual orientation and offended a few including one of the teachers and was asked to apologise the next week due to not fitting in with the rather liberal Anglicanism of the schools character. Indeed, one of the Geography teachers was talking about Jesus' parables and how they fit in with the geography of the Middle East (He called it Jesus & Geography which was a little cringeworthy). I found this dead boring for most of my school career until about 5th year where I started to appreciate the spiritual side to it while finding the rest of the stuff nonetheless dead boring :pac:

In the school at least two of the teachers had outed themselves as non-believers, and indeed one of the teachers and the R.E department allowed for the classes to meet together to discuss it during one of our classes. By that stage it was the Senior Cycle and many of the students didn't believe either.

But yeah, that's the story of my pseudo- and sometimes chuckleworthy "indoctrination" at school.

Confirmation training was offered by the chaplain after school hours ended, and confirmation was done in the school chapel on a Sunday.

In the classroom we were taught the State curriculum for R.E which everyone had to do for Junior Cert, and was optional until Leaving Cert.

Wicknight wrote: »

Baptizing your child sending them to a faith school, telling them they are Christian, telling them what they should believe, making them do 1st Communion because that is what Catholics do etc is not parents teaching kids about the parents faith? It is not what lmaopml or Seaneh are describing.

Do you agree with that? If so perhaps we can make progress.

I actually disagree with putting children through rites of confirmation, or communion within school hours. Dare I say it despite my CofI upbringing, I've come to think it best that people are baptised when they make their own personal commitment to follow Jesus. I was baptised as an infant by my parents, and didn't really believe for numerous years afterwards.

Wicknight wrote: »

And what is the difference in terms of indoctrination between using your kids in protests and say 1st Communion? Or simply bringing your kids to church each Sunday because you tell your kids they are Christian and should go to church?

One can go to church, experience church, and think about what is being said at the pulpit. This is what I do every Sunday in fact. Coming from the background that I come from as well if I am uncertain about anything in the sermon, I would politely ask the minister afterwards where he was getting this from in the Bible and about his reasoning in general. I would encourage all Christians to do this. A thinking faith is generated in this way. People should never sit down and feel like they don't understand the sermon and leave.

Wicknight wrote: »

To clarify I mean in terms of the effect it has on what the children believe, I'm not comparing the actual act of church with a protest at a funeral.

From my experience very little. I had to read the Bible for myself before I really got Christianity. This should be put across more strongly by the church so that people can think deeply about the commitment they are making to Jesus rather than blindly making it because ah that's what everyone does, and there's a nice bit of money and family time in the pub afterwards.

Wicknight wrote: »

Seaneh has said he is going to do everything he can to help his kids understand "what they as christians should believe"

What they as Christians should believe.

As Christians, in the event that they decide to follow Christ would be my understanding. Perhaps Seaneh would disagree with me.

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps he didn't mean it like that, but it is what he said. Can you explain what the difference between that and the second thing you said is?

See above.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

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

Can you please stop lying about what I've said? It's very annoying! :pac:

This is the second time, the first time was here.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

And YOU KNOW you misunderstood what I was saying, tried to score cheap points with quotes from 2007, failed, looked stupid and now are backtracking.

Nope. But thanks for the insight into YOUR workings.

I've zero interest in playing this stupid game with you Jimi.

If only.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Wicknight, seriously I have no idea what your point is

My point was in the first post

"There is a difference between education and indoctrination"

Telling your children they are Christians is not merely educating them about your Christianity.

Requiring them to partake in Christian tradition because you consider them Christians is not merely answering their questions about your Christianity. Baptizing your children as Christians is not merely saying "mummy believes this..."

lmaopml wrote: »

....you seem to be engaging in word play and pedantry.

Quite the opposite in fact, I'm trying to get people to stop deflecting and obfuscating.

Then we can have a proper discussion as to the effects of this.

Do you at least agree with the first bit, that you are doing more then merely educating your children about your religion?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Can you please stop lying about what I've said? It's very annoying! :pac:

It is not a lie.

You have consistently claimed that all of this doesn't effect the child's choices to freely accept Christianity. You have claimed that raising your children as Christians is merely education.

That is, frankly, wrong. Not wrong in the moral sense, wrong in the literal that isn't how reality works sense.

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.

If you tell your children they are Christian the choice isn't to accept Christianity. The choice is to reject your parents, or continue as you were since you are already considered Christian. That is something children won't do and adults are unlikely to do (you can wheel out as many individual experiences you have had Jakkass but the statistics show an overwhelming majority stay in the religion they were given by their parents)

Now the ultimate question is is this a good thing to do?

thirtythirty

It's the same for all religions. Even mentioning the word "christian" suddenly creates awareness of an entire concept that was previously unknown to a child, and by some degree steers them towards it.

Why do you think the Crusades and Missionaries did their business? Because surprise surprise, communities, colonies, and regions that didn't have parents spouting Christian beliefs didn't believe, or even know about, the religion.

It's selfish of parents who try to force and direct children to believe something, just because they [the parents] "won't be square with their god or religion" if they don't. It's a purely self serving exercise. The benefits for the parent are obvious, but what benefits are there for the child outside of the belief's concepts(i.e. no "saved soul" arguments).

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Great. I can only vouch for my opinion.

Can you vouch for your opinion on what I and they are describing?

Jakkass wrote: »

We said the Lord's prayer to start off the day in the classroom.

Why did you say the Lord's prayer each morning if you weren't a Christian?

Jakkass wrote: »

Morning chapel for 20 minutes every day which included announcements, as well as a hymn, a short reading from the 100 Minute Bible, a prayer and a short talk from the chaplain.

Why were you praying each morning if you weren't a Christian?

Jakkass wrote: »

But yeah, that's the story of my pseudo- and sometimes chuckleworthy "indoctrination" at school.

And you are a non-Christian now, correct?

Let me guess, that is a coincidence.

And it is a coincidence that the vast majority of people who attend faith schools end up being in the denomination of that faith school, no matter what faith that school actually is.

If the faith you were raised as ("in" is an inaccurate way to describe what actually happens) had no effect on the faith you are when you are adult the statistics would support this. In reality they support the exact opposite.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

My point was in the first post

"There is a difference between education and indoctrination"

Telling your children they are Christians is not merely educating them about your Christianity.

Requiring them to partake in Christian tradition because you consider them Christians is not merely answering their questions about your Christianity. Baptizing your children as Christians is not merely saying "mummy believes this..."

Wicknight - Hi, I'll try to explain...

Ok, from the off - I don't go about everyday like some kind of loony telling my children, 'you're a lil ole Christian ye know, come over and sit on my lap there my lil Christians...'....no, it doesn't work like that. I lead the way and involve them and set an example for them, answer their questions etc. etc.

Ok, I see from an atheist perspective that this obviously makes sense to you, and you believe that I may be doing something wrong on my children by bringing them up within my faith.

From a parents perspective who believes that there is a God, and that it's my job to look after my childrens welfare - spiritually, mentally, physically etc. there is no better way for me to look after their welfare in that 'spiritual' sense then to introduce them to God using the medium of my faith - I would be doing them a disservice if you will; do you understand that?


Also, this ties in with very many things that parents choose for their children - Like for instance, I believe 'sport' is really great especially for boys and I make the decision that I'm going to sign my little fella up to Karate or Football etc. - I'd have to bring them to 'practice' too though...and if on a 'census' form it asked me are they practicing 'football' I'd say 'yes' they are practicing at this current point in time football and this makes them practicers of football...

From my perspective, I don't really understand why 'baptism' is such a big deal for you at all, because you don't believe that it is anything other than a trickle of water, and if you do believe it's anything other than that, you would be the first atheist I know that does..

Do you believe in religious freedom? ...and why does it matter so much to you to establish that if somebody is born and reared in their faith, than many times they will end up going back to that self same faith - if you don't believe any of them are true anyway? Why does it matter to you? I believe if 'Wicknight' was born in Tibet he may not be an atheist either...iykwim.

Do you believe in religious freedom?

...and do you understand that every parent is different, ones 'religion' or 'lack of', doesn't necessarily underscore how adjusted your children will turn out - and even quite apart from that - if you have a suggestion as to how 'all' children should be raised in the Wicknight tradition, then how would you propose to implement such a thing without negating religious freedom and having your ideology interfer in the parenting process world over? I know you believe you are 'right' - cripes so does every parent I know, and they all come in different shades....

Can't you see that you are just another opinion at the end of the day - it 'matters', like everybody, but it is not a foolproof guarantee of anything. Personally, I think it's important to 'feed' the soul as well as educate the soul of my children...that's my opinion.

thirtythirty

lmaopml wrote: »

Like for instance, I believe 'sport' is really great especially for boys and I make the decision that I'm going to sign my little fella up to Karate or Football etc. - I'd have to bring them to 'practice' too though...and if on a 'census' form it asked me are they practicing 'football' I'd say 'yes' they are practicing at this current point in time football and this makes them practicers of football...

Except 'sport' is proven to be good for a child. And when little Timmy asks "why do I have to do sport?" or "how do you know sport is good for you", you can say "look at that boy over there, look how strong and healthy he is".


I refer you to my last post a couple up, you might think you are doing the best thing for your child, but really, there is nothing discernibly good in that for the child, only for yourself.

Seaneh

the poster above doesn't understand just how important a relationship with God is to Christians and as such couldn't possibly understand why we would want it for our children,

thirtythirty

Poster above has missed the point of the thread and failed to realise it is a two-way discussion regarding the merits of whether it is correct to steer children towards Christianity.


Poster above's post also reinforces this poster's point about it being a selfish act - "we would want".

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Wicknight - Hi, I'll try to explain...

Ok, from the off - I don't go about everyday like some kind of loony telling my children, 'you're a lil ole Christian ye know, come over and sit on my lap there my lil Christians...'....no, it doesn't work like that.

If you were doing that I would say you were trying far more than in necessary.

The difference between a loony like Fred Phelps or some KKK nuts trying to raise his kids to hate black people and you and me isn't how they teach them it is what they teach them. They teach them loony stuff, not necessarily in a loony way.

I don't for one minute think you are lying your kids up every morning at 6am and getting them to memorize the Bible. But I also don't think for one minute that would be necessary to turn them into Christians.

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, I see from an atheist perspective that this obviously makes sense to you, and you believe that I may be doing something wrong on my children by bringing them up within my faith.

As I said we aren't even at the right or wrong stage. We have spent the last 5 pages just trying to tie down what you are actually doing.

The right or wrong stage comes in when we introduce the question of whether you actually want your kids to freely choose Christianity at a later stage when they have an adult understanding of it.

If you do why are you spending the majority of their lives up to this point acting like they already choose?

lmaopml wrote: »

From a parents perspective who believes that there is a God, and that it's my job to look after my childrens welfare - spiritually, mentally, physically etc. there is no better way for me to look after their welfare in that 'spiritual' sense then to introduce them to God using the medium of my faith

That sounds nice, but those words have little bearing on reality. You will have to explain what you mean by "introduce them to God" given that you literally aren't going "Kids, God, God kids"

As I said saying you are a Christian is different to saying your kids are Christians. Saying you have to go to mass because you are a Christian is different to saying your kids have to go to mass because they are Christians.

When you actually look at the actual things you do as part of "introducing" your kids to God it simply looks like deciding they are Christians and taking it from there.

That I assume you agree is far more than merely educating them about your faith.

lmaopml wrote: »

Also, this ties in with very many things that parents choose for their children - Like for instance, I believe 'sport' is really great especially for boys and I make the decision that I'm going to sign my little fella up to Karate or Football etc. - I'd have to bring them to 'practice' too though...and if on a 'census' form it asked me are they practicing 'football' I'd say 'yes' they are practicing at this current point in time football and this makes them practicers of football...

I would agree with all that, but I would also not be operating under any illusions that my kids were choosing this freely. I'm making them do sport because it is better for them than sitting playing Xbox all day. I wouldn't even be under any illusions that my kids were enjoying it, they are still doing it because it is good for them.

As I said in my earlier post once you do start operating under such illusions you end up creepy parent territory, such a parents signing their kid up to all these football tournaments with the idea that the kid "really wants" to be a professional football player, even though the kid himself has shown no interest in this other than what the parents make him show.

I've no doubt you think it is best for your kids for them to be Christian. But that is wholly different to saying you think it is best for your kids to learn about your Christianity. That isn't the same thing. So why the pretense?

lmaopml wrote: »

From my perspective, I don't really understand why 'baptism' is such a big deal for you at all, because you don't believe that it is anything other than a trickle of water, and if you do believe it's anything other than that, you would be the first atheist I know that does..

The act is meaningless from the physical sense of doing anything. It has huge meaning though in the context of the child freely choosing what religion they are when they are old enough. If the parent and the child spend most of the time the child is alive working under the idea that the child has already been given a religion it is nonsensical to say that the child chooses their religion when they are a young adult.

That is in fact the point. These rituals are all designed to keep children within the religion of the parent. That is why they exist, to keep the family tradition of the religion.

lmaopml wrote: »

Do you believe in religious freedom?

Yes. The more important question is do you? And I mean genuinely believe in it, not believe in your right to choose the religion of your children, which is not religious freedom, and more than my parents choosing who I vote for is political freedom.

lmaopml wrote: »

.and why does it matter so much to you to establish that if somebody is born and reared in their faith, than many times they will end up going back to that self same faith - if you don't believe any of them are true anyway? Why does it matter to you?

Because I believe religion is a private matter for an adult, not a child who has so many other factors influencing him or her than a rational assessment of religion.

I feel this about lots of ideological questions, not just religion. It is just religion is the only one that gets a "free pass".

There is a reason we don't let people vote until they are 18. There is a reason why parents can't sign their 4 year olds up to college course well in advance (such an idea would seem ridiculous). There is a reason why if someone said my 6 month old wants to be a doctor we would look at him as if he is nuts.

So why do we baptize them at 6 months, when from an intellectual level they are effectively the same thing.

lmaopml wrote: »

Can't you see that you are just another opinion at the end of the day - it 'matters', like everybody, but it is not a foolproof guarantee of anything.

I don't expect anyone to have a foolproof guarantee of anything. But going out of your way to do something that runs contrary to what you claim to believe is nonsensical.

lmaopml wrote: »

Personally, I think it's important to 'feed' the soul as well as educate the soul of my children...that's my opinion.

Again I've no idea what that means in relation to what you actually do? Do you actually know what that means or is it just supposed to sound nice?

When you say "feed" the soul I see indoctrinate my kid into my religion. You may think that sounds unfair but you ain't exactly explaining how you aren't, you just come up with nicer sounding language for what you are doing.

Which is fine if that is what you genuinely believe is best for your kids. I disagree but as you point out there isn't a lot I can do about it. But why then the pussy footing around this?

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

the poster above doesn't understand just how important a relationship with God is to Christians and as such couldn't possibly understand why we would want it for our children,

That I think is the easiest bit to understand.

The world is full of parents who mistake what they want for what their children want. Everyone knows someone who is doing a college course, or playing a sport, or going travelling to an area, or following a job because their parents really enjoyed this and convinced their children to do it aswell under the pretense that if they enjoyed it their children will do.

This is not difficult to understand, nor is it something people say is not done out of genuine love or concern for the child.

The issue is whether this actually ends up making your children happy or not given that it is not their choice.

Everyone makes their children play sport because you know it is better for them than sitting around watching TV. We know this, we certainly don't expect or require our children to rationally conclude this as well. They don't get a choice, it is turn off that damn TV and get outside with your brothers.

But we also hope that our children eventually choose a sport they enjoy. It is not in away socially unacceptable to say that a parent who forces their child to continue a sport they don't enjoy rather than looking for an alternative is being a bad parent.

If someone said when their child was 6 months old "I'm signing my kid up for football camp he is going to be a top footballer when he grows up" there isn't a person here who wouldn't think Ok, bit creepy obviously that parent is projecting onto the kid.

That is seen as socially unacceptable (though it still regularly happens) because we know the kid isn't picking football so why exactly would we expect them to love it.

Equally if your kid isn't picking Christianity why would you expect them to actually love Jesus? You can tell them they should all you like, but how is that going to actually make them love him?

Just like with football it ends up being the kid doesn't know if they actually love Jesus, have an actual relationship with God, or just think they do because you have told them so many times that they should.

This is why it seems daft, as I said at the start.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not a lie.

You have consistently claimed that all of this doesn't effect the child's choices to freely accept Christianity. You have claimed that raising your children as Christians is merely education.

That is, frankly, wrong. Not wrong in the moral sense, wrong in the literal that isn't how reality works sense.

It's very clearly a lie. I never denied that indoctrination occurs in cases.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you tell your children they are Christian the choice isn't to accept Christianity. The choice is to reject your parents, or continue as you were since you are already considered Christian. That is something children won't do and adults are unlikely to do (you can wheel out as many individual experiences you have had Jakkass but the statistics show an overwhelming majority stay in the religion they were given by their parents)

Where did I say anything about this? - It appears that you haven't been reading my posts.

Experience is a lot more tangible than the means you are using by the by. Having actually discussing with other Christians and in reviewing my own life, I can get a more accurate assessment of what it is all about than if I didn't.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why did you say the Lord's prayer each morning if you weren't a Christian?

It was just something that was done. I said it, it wasn't the most heartfelt, the day carried on. I'd suspect it was a part of giving us an experience of what Christianity was about so that we could determine for ourselves at a later date.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why were you praying each morning if you weren't a Christian?

See above

Wicknight wrote: »

And you are a non-Christian now, correct?

Chronology:
1. Aged 0 - 13 - Went to church, did the usual, but didn't actively believe in God.
2. 13 - 17 - Rejected the idea of the existence of God due to the presence of suffering.
3. 17 - present - Began thinking about other religions particularly Judaism and Islam, and read through the Bible for the first time. On doing so I concluded that Christianity was the most realistic and accurate description of the human condition that I had ever come across. At that point, I decided that Christianity made clear sense and began to commit myself without numerous struggles in and out of dealing with my former sin.

Your reasoning is absurd as it assumes that because one was raised with Christian parents that they actually can't think about it for themselves. It's only really thinking for yourself if you make the decision that you want us to make :pac: Interestingly, I was clearly ignorant of many of the main teachings of the Christian faith until I read the Bible for myself.

Seaneh

spottyelephant wrote: »

Poster above has missed the point of the thread and failed to realise it is a two-way discussion regarding the merits of whether it is correct to steer children towards Christianity.


Poster above's post also reinforces this poster's point about it being a selfish act - "we would want".

So it is selfish to want is best for my child?
I guess I shouldn't bother educating them, getting their medical needs looked after or keeping them in clothes then?
Because, as a Christian, a relationship with God is more important than any of those.


This isn't a two way discussion, it is, as usual, wik spout nonsense and trying to claim a moral high ground her doesn't have any access to because it doesn't exist.

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

The world is full of parents who mistake what they want for what their children want.

Oh dear lord would you ever just give up.

Sometimes parents know what's best for their child.
Some kids don't like wearing clothes, but it's in their best interest to wear them.
Some kids won't eat certain foods, but it is what it best for them.

I have never met a 4 year old child from a Christian family who didn't want to be at sunday school, who didn't want you to read them stories from the bible, who didn't want you to tell them about how much god loves them and cares for them. In fact, I know countless cases of the exact opposite. They might not fully understand the concept of God but what they have had explained to them they definitely want.
If they didn't they would let you know because there is nothing surer in the world than the fact that a child who is unhappy in a situation will let you know one way or another.

We teach ort children what we believe, we tell them why it's important, we do it in an age appropriate way. I don't tell a 4 year old the in's and out's of the how's and why's of Christianity, I tell them the basics. "God loves you, he wants to be part of your life and he wants you to be happy" I might tell a 10 year old about more advanced stuff and then from secondary school age onwards get into the more advanced theological stuff because a) they can process it and b) they are mature enough to make an actual decision on it.
We do these things because we know it is best for them. god want's a relationship with 4 year olds just as much as he does with 104 year olds. He want's them to grow into his plan for their lives, he wants to bless them and make them happy, we as parents try to show them how they can have that relationship and claim that blessing over their lives. We don't just say "you're a christian" and never tell them what that means, that would be pointless, unless they actually believe it, they aren't christians. We raise our children in the church and then when they are old enough to commit themselves (be that 10 or 75) they take that step themselves. I can tell a 4 year old to "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord" but I cannot force them to "believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead". If they don't actually believe it, they aren't Christians.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's very clearly a lie. I never denied that indoctrination occurs in cases.

The only case you admitted was indoctrination was Fred Phelps. You have consistently said that a Christian raising their child as a Christian does not cause indoctrination to Christianity.

Jakkass wrote: »

Where did I say anything about this? - It appears that you haven't been reading my posts.

Groan.

Here

Raising ones children as Christians means giving their children knowledge about Christianity is.

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.

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.

I could go on but I think you get the point. Your position all along is that what Christians do by raising their children as Christians is not indoctrination and doesn't lead to them not freely choosing Christianity as an adult based on adult rationality.

Jakkass wrote: »

It was just something that was done.

They just randomly picked a Christian prayer to say instead of say a passage of Yeats or the periodic table?

Or you re-sighted it because as far as the school were concerned you were a Christian and this is what you should be doing?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd suspect it was a part of giving us an experience of what Christianity was about so that we could determine for ourselves at a later date.

They were showing what it was like if you happened at a latter date to choose to be a Christian? I find it difficult to believe you are genuinely that naive Jakkass.

This is the sort of denial I'm talking about.

Jakkass wrote: »

Your reasoning is absurd as it assumes that because one was raised with Christian parents that they actually can't think about it for themselves.

Thinking for yourself sounds nice but in reality we spend a great deal of time being heavily influenced by external factors. It is absurd to pretend other wise.

Otherwise advertising wouldn't work, and religious spread would be unrelated to parents religion.

Multiply this by a factor of 100 when it comes to what we are taught as children.

I think people have great difficulty separate out what you spend an entire childhood being taught as true and what you decide in your later life is true. This goes for everything, not just religion.

Being genuinely surprised that you reach the same conclusion with religion out of the pleater of options that you spend a childhood being directly and indirectly is true is to me the absurd bit.

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

Oh dear lord would you ever just give up.

Wow, I'm going to frame this post as EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I wonder how Jakkass and lmaopml feel about this post.

Seaneh wrote: »

We teach ort children what we believe, we tell them why it's important, we do it in an age appropriate way. I don't tell a 4 year old the in's and out's of the how's and why's of Christianity, I tell them the basics. "God loves you, he wants to be part of your life and he wants you to be happy"

So at 4 years old you are telling them that God exists, God loves you, he wants to be part of your life and he wants you to be happy (yes, shocking none of them say they don't want this)

I assume you don't at this stage expect your child to actually rationally assess if any of this is true, correct? You don't say this is just what mommy believes and then tell them about Muslims?

Seaneh wrote: »

I might tell a 10 year old about more advanced stuff and then from secondary school age onwards get into the more advanced theological stuff because a) they can process it and b) they are mature enough to make an actual decision on it.

What decision are they making if from age 4 they have been told it is true? I assume not the decision to actually believe what you just told them?

Seaneh wrote: »

We do these things because we know it is best for them. god want's a relationship with 4 year olds just as much as he does with 104 year olds. He want's them to grow into his plan for their lives, he wants to bless them and make them happy, we as parents try to show them how they can have that relationship and claim that blessing over their lives. We don't just say "you're a christian" and never tell them what that means, that would be pointless, unless they actually believe it, they aren't christians.

Do you believe that when you tell a 4 year old God exists, he loves you, he wants to be part of your life the 4 year old doesn't yet believe what you just told him? Really?

As I said to Jakkass I find it very difficult to believe you guys are genuinely this naive.

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

Wow, I'm going to frame this post as EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I wonder how Jakkass and lmaopml feel about this post.



So at 4 years old you are telling them that God exists, God loves you, he wants to be part of your life and he wants you to be happy (yes, shocking none of them say they don't want this)

I assume you don't at this stage expect your child to actually rationally assess if any of this is true, correct? You don't say this is just what mommy believes and then tell them about Muslims?



What decision are they making if from age 4 they have been told it is true? I assume not the decision to actually believe what you just told them?


Do you believe that when you tell a 4 year old God exists, he loves you, he wants to be part of your life the 4 year old doesn't yet believe what you just told him? Really?

As I said to Jakkass I find it very difficult to believe you guys are genuinely this naive.

I am not having a fecking debate with you. I am telling you what I will do and feel I should do for the BENEFIT OF MY CHILDREN.

I am not going to sit here for hours while you continuously ramble on with your absolute drivel and selectively quote people, miss the point entirely and try to "win" a debate by making the other person just lose interest as per usual.

God = the biggest, most important part of my life. The most beneficial part of my life, the best part of my life.

A relationship with God = The best, most beneficial thing my children could possibly have in their life.


I am going to do everything in my power to make sure they have the best possible foundation for that relationship. I cannot force them to have that relationship, I cannot make them actually believe. I can show them why I believe it and if they find it appealing they will believe it too. A 4 year old might accept the limited stuff I do tell them, but if said the same thing to a 14 year old they'd want more info and ask more questions. If a 4 year old did the same, I'd provide it, but they don't, so I give them more and more info over the years, based on what they can process, what they can actually comprehend. I will lay the ground work for them to have a relationship with God, I cannot make them have that relationship, I cannot make them believe. But I will make damned sure they have the best possible foundation to build their belief from.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

As I said to Jakkass I find it very difficult to believe you guys are genuinely this naive.

Funnily enough, many of us tend to think the same of atheists.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Funnily enough, many of us tend to think the same of atheists.

Do you think priests lead children in prayer in school to give them an idea of what it might be like if they decide to be Christians in later life?

I doubt it.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think priests lead children in prayer in school to give them an idea of what it might be like if they decide to be Christians in later life?

I doubt it.

One day you might wake up and realise just how much you have been affected by indoctrination into atheism. We'll be waiting for you

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

I am not having a fecking debate with you. I am telling you what I will do and feel I should do for the BENEFIT OF MY CHILDREN.

No, what you were actually telling me my opinion is "daft"

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.

I'm well aware you don't agree with me, but you seem at a loss on how to tell me I'm wrong.

Getting pissed off with me and telling me over and over this is what you want to do isn't the same as telling me I'm wrong.

Seaneh wrote: »

A 4 year old might accept the limited stuff I do tell them, but if said the same thing to a 14 year old they'd want more info and ask more questions.

Isn't that a good reason to tell it to the 14 year old, not the 4 year old?

Do you actually want them to understand and to question? Or just accept?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

One day you might wake up and realise just how much you have been affected by indoctrination into atheism. We'll be waiting for you

I spend large sums of money discussing with professionals the things I've been indoctrinated to believe by my parents.

It is good to know you guys are waiting for me when I get out :P

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't that a good reason to tell it to the 14 year old, not the 4 year old?

Do you actually want them to understand and to question? Or just accept?

You can teach a 4 year old arithmetic. They won't understand number theory

You can teach a 14 year old algebra. They may or may not understand calculus.

You can teach an 18 year old calculus and maybe start with number theory.

At 4 you can understand 1+1 =2

At 21 you might just be able to understand why.

Of course all these ages are variable and are dependent on intelligence and education.

The same is true of educating children in religion and theology. The concepts that can be grasped by a 4 year old are the building blocks to later education and learning.

thirtythirty

Seaneh wrote: »

So it is selfish to want is best for my child?
I guess I shouldn't bother educating them, getting their medical needs looked after or keeping them in clothes then?
Because, as a Christian, a relationship with God is more important than any of those.

Again, you're missing the point - why is it for the benefit of the children, outside of the concepts of the faith? It's not for the benefit of them, it's for the benefit of you, and what you believe.

If that's what you truely believe, then I feel sorry for your children. Hopefully once you've satisfied your own personal goals, your children can get an education and make the decision for themselves. Maybe they'll stay with the faith, maybe not. My guess is it'd be pretty hard for them to choose to leave though...

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

I spend large sums of money discussing with professionals the things I've been indoctrinated to believe by my parents.

It is good to know you guys are waiting for me when I get out :P

Fools and their money, eh ...

if you're so clued up what do you need professionals for? And how do you know they are not facilitating your further indoctrination?

Festus

spottyelephant wrote: »

Again, you're missing the point - why is it for the benefit of the children, outside of the concepts of the faith? It's not for the benefit of them, it's for the benefit of you, and what you believe.

It is for the benefit of the children because they, like you, have immortal souls and we want them to live good Christian lives so we can be with them later in Heaven.

Or in other words, they are our children and we don't want them to go to hell and we will do all in our power to see that they have the best chance of going to heaven.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

You can teach a 4 year old arithmetic. They won't understand number theory

Yes, that is the point.

Which makes the claim by some Christians that they want their offspring to understand Christianity before they accept it as true some what nonsensical, don't you agree?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Fools and their money, eh ...

if you're so clued up what do you need professionals for? And how do you know they are not facilitating your further indoctrination?

I don't.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

It is for the benefit of the children because they, like you, have immortal souls and we want them to live good Christian lives so we can be with them later in Heaven.

Living a good life doesn't get you into heaven. Believing in and accepting the offer of salvation from Jesus does.

Doesn't that acceptance require genuine understanding?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, that is the point.

Which makes the claim by some Christians that they want their offspring to understand Christianity before they accept it as true some what nonsensical, don't you agree?

No. It is presented as truth regardless.

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

No, what you were actually telling me my opinion is "daft"

In a Christian context, it (your opinion) is daft. It's damned well bad parenting and should be ignored entirely.

But opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and most of the time they are full of brown stuff.

I'm not getting pissed off with you. I just cannot understand how you can even begin to try and pretend that your petty little rant and selective quoting is in any way valid.

Here's a question. Do you believe that it is damaging to a child to raise them as a Christian? If, get the hell off your shetland pony because you haven't even got a high horse to fall off of.

The reason I will raise my children as christians from the day they are born is because I know it is best for them. I do not know when I, my potential future wife or my children will die. I have a duty to my children to ensure they have the best foundation possible for a real relationship with God in case anything were to happen to them or me.


As for the rest of your post,. more bollocks selective quoting to try and appear to be actually trying to "understand" when all you are actually trying to do is drag people into a pseudo war of attrition, during which you will spout the same nonsense over and over again, refuse to acknowledge their posts at all (accept where you twist small segments of them) and stand on your little soap box as if you have some sort of moral highground and are defending the "just cause".


No toddle off to your corner and think of another thread to start to try and annoy people.

Your questions have been answered several times by several people and your constant use of the same inane "debate" tools is just boring me at this stage.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Living a good life doesn't get you into heaven. Believing in and accepting the offer of salvation from Jesus does.

Doesn't that acceptance require genuine understanding?

That would be the Protestant line and I will not discuss Protestant belief with an atheist.

thirtythirty

Festus wrote: »

It is for the benefit of the children because they, like you, have immortal souls and we want them to live good Christian lives so we can be with them later in Heaven.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. (Not starting the based-on-nothing argument).

But why steer them to it. Surely if its "the right path", they'll learn about it in equal capacity to every other (and non) faiths, and then make their own decision, rather than being environmentally conditioned from birth...

Seaneh

spottyelephant wrote: »

Again, you're missing the point - why is it for the benefit of the children, outside of the concepts of the faith? It's not for the benefit of them, it's for the benefit of you, and what you believe.

If that's what you truely believe, then I feel sorry for your children. Hopefully once you've satisfied your own personal goals, your children can get an education and make the decision for themselves. Maybe they'll stay with the faith, maybe not. My guess is it'd be pretty hard for them to choose to leave though...

No.
You are missing the point, entirely.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't.

You don't what. You don't use professionals thereby contradicting what you said in #87 or you don't know that they are indoctrinating you?

Festus

spottyelephant wrote: »

Well, that's a matter of opinion. (Not starting the based-on-nothing argument).

But why steer them to it. Surely if its "the right path", they'll learn about it in equal capacity to every other (and non) faiths, and then make their own decision, rather than being environmentally conditioned from birth...

This is the Christianity forum so no it is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

And we do it because we are parents and we love our children as God loves us and we have primary responsibility for the education of our children.