Doing everything your power to ensure your children are Christian

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok. Imagine only one person has ever said that their child is a Christian before an age that the child could be reasonably expected to be able to choose for themselves that they are (say a 4 year old)

Would you consider that person to be merely educating their child about the parents faith? Or would you consider it more than that?

Slightly more. It's attaching an identity to a child that they themselves have not chosen. It's still a long way from what I would commonly call indoctrination, being kids repeating mantras about the Great Leader in North Korea or something.

As JimiTime has mentioned earlier, your use of indoctrination is sensationalist. I would discourage people referring to children as Christians, but it is a different thing to say that they were raised in a Christian family (I.E had Christian parents). One attaches an identity to the child that they have not chosen, or are not aware of attaching to themselves, and another merely says that the family has a Christian character due to the parents.

In short, it is more than education it is identity attaching also.

Wicknight wrote: »

My assumption should be reasonably clear, lots and lots and lots of Christains think of their children as Christian before an age when a child could reasonably be expected to understand and make such a decision for themselves, and they describe them as such.

I'm not sure if this is entirely true.

Wicknight wrote: »

This too me is far more than merely educating their children about the parents religion.

Making a decision on behalf of someone is more yes. I'd agree. As I said already, Christian parents at most can only in earnest introduce a child to Christ, it is up to them to decide whether or not to make the life-changing move to accept Him as Lord.

Wicknight wrote: »

Before you agree or disagree with the question of whether this happens do you agree or disagree with the question of whether this is merely educating them as to the parents faith?

See above.

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

moot point until the experiment is conducted.

You might be interested in this talk by Justin L. Barrett (not to be confused with the other Justin Barrett) entitled The Nature of Childhood Theism.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You might be interested in this talk by Justin L. Barrett (not to be confused with the other Justin Barrett) entitled The Nature of Childhood Theism.

many thanks.

Given that Christianity is seen as irrational by some in the science community his studies should avoid the WEIRD phenomenon (New Scientist v208 #2786)

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Slightly more. It's attaching an identity to a child that they themselves have not chosen. It's still a long way from what I would commonly call indoctrination, being kids repeating mantras about the Great Leader in North Korea or something.

Didn't you say you recited a prayer every day at the start of your school?

It is difficult to see how you don't view all the instructed religious rituals children go through as children in the same light as North Koreans repeating mantras about Great Leader?

Is it simply because they are familiar and you know some kids don't take them seriously? I imagine some North Koreans don't either, but the general it has an effect.

Or is it that you don't view a cult around Kim Jong as true but do view prayers to God as true?

Jakkass wrote: »

As JimiTime has mentioned earlier, your use of indoctrination is sensationalist.

Ok. I said earlier I'm happy to use a different word so long as we don't sugar coat the meaning. I'm not prepared to simply abandon the notion that this is more than education about the parents religion simply because some Christians would like to pretend that is all it is. I am prepared to use a different term if you guys think indoctrination is too strong, though as the point about the reciting of prayers in school I wouldn't be so quick to utterly dismiss the notion of indoctrination simply because it is familiar

Jakkass wrote: »

I would discourage people referring to children as Christians, but it is a different thing to say that they were raised in a Christian family (I.E had Christian parents).

I appreciate that, but this "Christian family" thing seems rather divorced from reality. I can find very little evidence that this is how most Christians view or refer to their children, and tons of evidence that they refer to their kids as Christians (such as the Irish census)

Again I'm happy to dial down terms and ideas that you believe are sensationalists (I don't think every Christian raising their child as a Christian is a nut case like Fred Phelps).

But equally sugar coating it with a version of reality that has nothing to do with what most Christians are actually doing is also not on unless there is contrary evidence that demonstrates I'm viewing this wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is entirely true.

Why?

It certainly seems to be, which is understandable if we live in a country where no one things there is anything wrong with simply assigning your religion to your child, which if this thread is anything to go by seems to be the case.

For example the Irish census asks you fill out the religion of your children. Most people put down a religion for them. One imagines they do this without some serious philosophical debate about whether the child is old enough to actually decide this his their religion. They just put down what they were baptized as, and that happened when they were a few months old.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

As JimiTime has mentioned earlier, your use of indoctrination is sensationalist.

Indeed. As I said earlier the word itself is accurate from a definitive POV:

in·doc·tri·nate   
[in-dok-truh-neyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1.
to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2.
to teach or inculcate.
3.
to imbue with learning.

But, due to the evolution of its use in a negative sense in modern English and especially in Anti-theist circles, it is a poor word to use.

It is accurate to say that we 'indoctrinate' or 'inculcate' our Children with morals, manners etc etc. Why don't we use those terms for these things though? We say, that we'll 'teach' etc as it doesn't have the negative impact of the other terms.

I would discourage people referring to children as Christians,

I'd say why? On the occasion where a parent for some reason is asked if their child is Christian, I think we can understand that if they say 'yes', that they are not saying that the child understands all theology or has even come to their conclusions from some big independent study they embarked on. It is implied that the parent in raising their child as a Christian. Its just simplified language. rather than saying, 'Well actually, he's not, but I hope him to be and I am teaching him and raising him in Christ'. Now we could technically argue that this is the case, but in the interest of language, we sometimes simply give our audience the credit of being intelligent enough to realise what just saying 'yes' means.

I get the impression that the above opinion is due to your exposure to atheist pedantry, you know what I mean? I personally wouldn't discourage parents referring to their children as fellow Christians, just because of some pedantry from anti-theists. At the end of the day, if you are raising them as Christians, they will refer to themselves as such too. Outside of the anti-theists mind, is that a big deal?

but it is a different thing to say that they were raised in a Christian family (I.E had Christian parents). One attaches an identity to the child that they have not chosen, or are not aware of attaching to themselves, and another merely says that the family has a Christian character due to the parents.

TBH, I think even when one refers to their child as a Christian, the above is implied don't you think?

I think indulging the anti-theist objection is counter productive. We are allowing them to dictate how we use language and interact etc. Basing it on technicalities and anti-theist mindset. You know where I'm coming from? It'd be better to show them their pedantry rather than indulge it IMO:)

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Didn't you say you recited a prayer every day at the start of your school?

I explained this already a few pages ago. At that time it was something that was done and going through the motions. Its understandable that prayer would be taught in the event that one decides to follow Christ later. I understand also that you disagree with this view, but that's pretty much my take.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is difficult to see how you don't view all the instructed religious rituals children go through as children in the same light as North Koreans repeating mantras about Great Leader?

It's very different. Prayer isn't a mantra to Christians, but rather a clear communication to God. There needs to be much more done, from my view to explain why we pray when people are in a Christian ethos school.

Wicknight wrote: »

Is it simply because they are familiar and you know some kids don't take them seriously? I imagine some North Koreans don't either, but the general it has an effect.

Or is it that you don't view a cult around Kim Jong as true but do view prayers to God as true?

See above.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok. I said earlier I'm happy to use a different word so long as we don't sugar coat the meaning. I'm not prepared to simply abandon the notion that this is more than education about the parents religion simply because some Christians would like to pretend that is all it is. I am prepared to use a different term if you guys think indoctrination is too strong, though as the point about the reciting of prayers in school I wouldn't be so quick to utterly dismiss the notion of indoctrination simply because it is familiar

It's not about a different word, you are still using the same terms of reference in this discussion, so changing your term is futile. It doesn't matter which terms you use if you are still referring to the same thing when you use them. (Forgive me for bringing in the philosophy of language, but it is very true)

Wicknight wrote: »

I appreciate that, but this "Christian family" thing seems rather divorced from reality. I can find very little evidence that this is how most Christians view or refer to their children, and tons of evidence that they refer to their kids as Christians (such as the Irish census)

The census would suggest that children are being raised as X rather than that they have chosen X until they are 18 I would assume. This isn't the most firm thinking though. I think that is the most reasonable assumption to look at when people are filling in census data. One might put a child down as Christian at 10 then they might reject it and move to Jedi or Scientology at 21. The figures can never be 100% accurate.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again I'm happy to dial down terms and ideas that you believe are sensationalists (I don't think every Christian raising their child as a Christian is a nut case like Fred Phelps).

See what I said about language above. It is irrelevant what terms you use, it is the fact that you are making a reference between this and that that is the issue. This reference remains irrespective of whether you tone it down, it tells me about the cognitive connection in your mind. To use different words would be to conceal your thought. I prefer to challenge your assumption.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

Simply, I think the mode of thought isn't quite as your describe. People overall do have a recognition that people have their own consciousness and can make their own decisions.

Wicknight wrote: »

It certainly seems to be, which is understandable if we live in a country where no one things there is anything wrong with simply assigning your religion to your child, which if this thread is anything to go by seems to be the case.

One can't in earnest assign anything to ones child. All one can do is raise one as well as one can to be able to make sense of it. Mere assigning isn't enough to encourage people to live godly lives.

Wicknight wrote: »

For example the Irish census asks you fill out the religion of your children. Most people put down a religion for them. One imagines they do this without some serious philosophical debate about whether the child is old enough to actually decide this his their religion. They just put down what they were baptized as, and that happened when they were a few months old.

See what I've said about the census above. Danke schön!

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I explained this already a few pages ago. At that time it was something that was done and going through the motions. Its understandable that prayer would be taught in the event that one decides to follow Christ later. I understand also that you disagree with this view, but that's pretty much my take.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say "Well its understandable that North Korean children chant Kim Jong's name in the event that one decides to join the Communist Party in later life"

Even if you believe these children are actually talking to God during this prayer do you really think it has no effect of re-enforcing a notion in them that they are Christians, the same sort of re-enforcement process that the Koren's (and other nations and groups that get children to recite words regularly) hope takes place in their children?

Once again I find myself at a loss as to how you can see this sort of thing so clearly in other instances but are so blind to it in your own religion.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not about a different word, you are still using the same terms of reference in this discussion, so changing your term is futile.

Ok, so given I mean "indoctrination" no one actually minds me continuing to use that word rather than, say, "bestow" (which seems to be just a nice word for indoctrination).

If people think I'm wrong fair enough, just so long as people understand what I mean and we don't have more of Jimi's "Oh look what you said in 2007" nonsense.

Jakkass wrote: »

The census would suggest that children are being raised as X rather than that they have chosen X until they are 18 I would assume. This isn't the most firm thinking though. I think that is the most reasonable assumption to look at when people are filling in census data. One might put a child down as Christian at 10 then they might reject it and move to Jedi or Scientology at 21. The figures can never be 100% accurate.

It is not about how accurate the figures are, it is about how parents and society view these children. The notion that most Christian parents realize and appreciate that a child doesn't have a religion yet seems wholly unsupported given the endemic nature that classifying children as having the religion the parent picks is in society.

This seems to be more wishful thinking on yours and Jimi's part than a reflection of reality.

I appreciate you understand the difference, but you also believe you shouldn't baptize toddlers so it shouldn't be that hard to see that your views how ever sensible can be in the minority given that the vast majority of Christians baptize their children soon after birth.

Jakkass wrote: »

One can't in earnest assign anything to ones child. All one can do is raise one as well as one can to be able to make sense of it. Mere assigning isn't enough to encourage people to live godly lives.

That wasn't quite my point. You may not be able to get them to lead godly lives by doing it but you can most certainly can do it, you can assign a religion to a child. Your view seems to be that most Christians don't do this or are not interested in doing this. This seems mere wishful thinking unsupported by a wealth of examples from society.

As for the effect on the child to me it is very naive to believe that constantly telling a child from an early age that they are a Christian (reinforced by things like morning prayer, communion and other rituals that they partake in because the expectation from the parents and family is that they are Christian) will have little effect on how they view themselves and their spiritual choices. I would say it has a huge effect.

And once again this is supported overwhelmingly by religion statistics. People stay in the faith of their parents in the vast majority of case. The idea that this is simply a coincidence is ridiculous.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say "Well its understandable that North Korean children chant Kim Jong's name in the event that one decides to join the Communist Party in later life"

Even if you believe these children are actually talking to God during this prayer do you really think it has no effect of re-enforcing a notion in them that they are Christians, the same sort of re-enforcement process that the Koren's (and other nations and groups that get children to recite words regularly) hope takes place in their children?

I've explained the difference rather clearly between them.

Wicknight wrote: »

Once again I find myself at a loss as to how you can see this sort of thing so clearly in other instances but are so blind to it in your own religion.

I'm using discernment really. If the same was true in Buddhism, Islam, or any other world faith, I would see it a bit differently. Indoctrination can occur, but in the vast majority of cases it doesn't from what I can see.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so given I mean "indoctrination" no one actually minds me continuing to use that word rather than, say, "bestow" (which seems to be just a nice word for indoctrination).

It's nothing to do with your word. Its to do with the terms of reference that you are attaching it to. If you used the word "playing tiddlywinks" instead of "indoctrination" yet you were still associating it with the same thing it would be about as problematic.

Wicknight wrote: »

If people think I'm wrong fair enough, just so long as people understand what I mean and we don't have more of Jimi's "Oh look what you said in 2007" nonsense.

Indeed. I don't think this is the best way to go, as personally I would have posted things in 2007 that I wouldn't hold to now by far.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not about how accurate the figures are, it is about how parents and society view these children. The notion that most Christian parents realize and appreciate that a child doesn't have a religion yet seems wholly unsupported given the endemic nature that classifying children as having the religion the parent picks is in society.

Most of the complaints concerning this on the A&A forum and elsewhere have to do with accuracy.

Wicknight wrote: »

This seems to be more wishful thinking on yours and Jimi's part than a reflection of reality.

There's nothing "wishful" about it. It's an accurate assessment of society.

Wicknight wrote: »

I appreciate you understand the difference, but you also believe you shouldn't baptize toddlers so it shouldn't be that hard to see that your views how ever sensible can be in the minority given that the vast majority of Christians baptize their children soon after birth.

Indeed, such a view is also atypical within my denomination. I think baptism has been incorporated so much into our culture that this is how it is performed. Personally I would like to see the church continue to reform and review its practices and ask why they do them this way.

Honestly, I don't think anyone genuinely believes that because they baptise their child as an infant that they are automatically a Christian for life. Indeed, this is probably the reason why "confirmation" needed to follow, and indeed even then it has become such a cultural normity that it has almost lost its meaning.

Wicknight wrote: »

That wasn't quite my point. You may not be able to get them to lead godly lives by doing it but you can most certainly can do it, you can assign a religion to a child. Your view seems to be that most Christians don't do this or are not interested in doing this. This seems mere wishful thinking unsupported by a wealth of examples from society.

I agree that you can, but it has limited impact. It encourages nominalism in the vast majority of cases. A nominal faith that will crumble at the first sign of a difficult question.

Most Christians who are genuinely passionate about their faith won't be interested in "attaching" anything. Rather they will be interested in encouraging Jesus to be at the centre of peoples lives. Attaching is meaningless. I could call anyone a Christian, but whether or not they are actually convinced that Jesus is Lord is another issue.

Wicknight wrote: »

As for the effect on the child to me it is very naive to believe that constantly telling a child from an early age that they are a Christian (reinforced by things like morning prayer, communion and other rituals that they partake in because the expectation from the parents and family is that they are Christian) will have little effect on how they view themselves and their spiritual choices. I would say it has a huge effect.

Interestingly, I was never told repeatedly by my parents or in any of my schools that I was a Christian.

Wicknight wrote: »

And once again this is supported overwhelmingly by religion statistics. People stay in the faith of their parents in the vast majority of case. The idea that this is simply a coincidence is ridiculous.

What figures? - It largely depends on the region. In the US 50% switch their religious affiliation in their lifetime. I would put that down to the culture actually rather than anything else. If you are living in a country with a State church, or a near dominant church if that church fails you you will stop involving yourself in any faith entirely because the "only faith" has let you down and vice versa. In more pluralistic societies people tend to look around and consider, that's what I'm finding anyway.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

If people think I'm wrong fair enough, just so long as people understand what I mean and we don't have more of Jimi's "Oh look what you said in 2007" nonsense.

It represented your use of 'indoctrination' from the horses mouth. If it is no longer what you think, then simply say that. It seems to be on the money though, so whats the issue? It seems by thinking I was trying to 'score points' (What a futile exercise) or 'saving face' (How bizarre), that this got under your skin. It would do you good to realise that some of us are not pedants simply arguing for the sake of it.

As jackass alluded to, there are things I also said last week never mind last year that I may not agree with today. Doesn't seem that way with you and indoctrination though, so how long ago you said it seems quite irrelevant.

It didn't seem that when you used it before or indeed now, you held to the definition of 'to imbue with learning'. In everyday language, you don't say you will 'indoctrinate' your child with morals or manners etc. No, only when you want to convey a negative do you use the word 'indoctrinate'. You played silly buggers at the beginning of this thread in relation to the word being ok to use as we indoctrinate with morals, manners etc and were basically saying to Christians, 'So whats your problem'? That was my contention from the start, and it hasn't changed. You playing dumb and being pedantic, that also hasn't changed.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

It represented your use of 'indoctrination' from the horses mouth. If it is no longer what you think, then simply say that. It seems to be on the money though, so whats the issue?

The issue is that it wasn't on the money, not even close, as I've already explained to you. You totally ignored the context of what I was talking about and then rant to me about how dishonest I am :rolleyes:

JimiTime wrote: »

It didn't seem that when you used it before or indeed now, you held to the definition of 'to imbue with learning'. In everyday language, you don't say you will 'indoctrinate' your child with morals or manners etc. No, only when you want to convey a negative do you use the word 'indoctrinate'.

That is patently untrue, you just ignore that fact because it doesn't fit the particular narrative in your head about "atheist like me"

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

and from a few months ago discussing indoctrination, a thread you were heavily involved in and which I already explained all this to you

Wicknight wrote:

That wasn't really my point. I want my children to get washed. I want them to not play on the road. I want them to share their toys. I've no problem saying that.

If Jakkass simply says I want my children to be Christian, that is fair enough. It is quite easy to make that happen, or at least greatly increase the odds that they will be. You simply start teaching them about it as if it was fact from an early age. As pinksior says children are sponges, and in fact there are very good evolutionary reasons why they are sponges.

The issue is this little dance we are all having where he claims he wants his children to rationally decide for themselves that they want to to be Christians, yet he wants to teach his children Christianity from a young age, where they will simply accept what they are told.

There is a contradiction here.

I could go on but I'm debating with myself as to whether I think it will actually have any effect on you. You were involved in that original debate but have obviously just selectively forgot everything that was told you. Or you are still holding a grudge from that debate because your points were contradicted. Either way your whole objection based on what you assume I'm saying when I have repeatably told you the opposite (over a space of months no less) is a EPIC FAIL.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained the difference rather clearly between them.

Well they are obviously different in detail, but the difference is that you believe the prayers are real, that the children are talking to God.

That though says nothing as to any indoctrination effect of the process, the re-enforcement in the minds of the children that they are Christian.

I mean you wouldn't say that the North Korean mantra has no effect on the kids because Kim Jong is a real person.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm using discernment really. If the same was true in Buddhism, Islam, or any other world faith, I would see it a bit differently. Indoctrination can occur, but in the vast majority of cases it doesn't from what I can see.

Again statistics tell a different story. The rate of parent - child religion ratio is as high in Christian as any other religion.

Jakkass wrote: »

There's nothing "wishful" about it. It's an accurate assessment of society.

It is whole sale ignoring statistics and the ton of examples I've already discussed.

Jakkass wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think anyone genuinely believes that because they baptise their child as an infant that they are automatically a Christian for life.

Really? I think Catholics might disagree with that, considering the lengths they go to to ensure children are baptized and the doctrines they have for what happens to unbaptized children, and the system they have for formally leaving the church (ie once baptized you are considered Catholic until you decide otherwise)

Again you seem to be ignoring whole sale the reality of the situation.

Indeed, this is probably the reason why "confirmation" needed to follow, and indeed even then it has become such a cultural normity that it has almost lost its meaning.

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree that you can, but it has limited impact.

Again statistics tell a different story.

Jakkass wrote: »

It encourages nominalism in the vast majority of cases. A nominal faith that will crumble at the first sign of a difficult question.

How crumbly the faith is is rather irrelevant to the issue. A Christian with a house of cards faith is still a Christian.

Jakkass wrote: »

Most Christians who are genuinely passionate about their faith won't be interested in "attaching" anything. Rather they will be interested in encouraging Jesus to be at the centre of peoples lives.

That is a no true Scots man argument. How insincere a Christians faith is won't have much impact on the children, any more than in North Korean a teacher who hates Kim Jong will have little effect on the kids reciting the pledge.

Jakkass wrote: »

Attaching is meaningless.

Not to the effect on the child, which is the central issue.

Jakkass wrote: »

I could call anyone a Christian, but whether or not they are actually convinced that Jesus is Lord is another issue.

It is, but it isn't this issue. Someone pretending to be a Christian can indoctrinate a child as easily as someone who is a real Christian.

All other faiths are wrong if Christianity is true yet they still manage to do the same to their kids, as do atheists.

Jakkass wrote: »

Interestingly, I was never told repeatedly by my parents or in any of my schools that I was a Christian.

Of course you were. You said a Christian prayer every morning.

Again it is ridiculous naive to think that this is understood by the child to have no meaning, or no reflection on them.

Jakkass wrote: »

What figures? - It largely depends on the region. In the US 50% switch their religious affiliation in their lifetime.

They switch their denomination, which isn't surprising because you can drive down a street in America and find 5 baptist churches that all have differences and consider themselves different (and thus if you move from one to another you have technically changed your religious affiliation even if the differences are major or minor)

As you say denomination is not a faith. 50% of Americans don't switch from Christianity to Islam or Scientology.

lmaopml

Wicknight, I only had time to skim read the last few days, but just a little clarification. There is a difference between the Catholic and Orthodox view on baptism and some of our Christian brothers in other traditions. It is a 'sacrament' one of seven - and we respectively believe that it is more than a declaration of faith, but also imbues grace. It is not symbolic to us.

A little deep perhaps, but it's something worth noting as to why Catholics do baptise infants, and make their Confirmation later. The Sacraments imbue Grace and we believe that we are on a 'journey' through faith in grace....

Just something worth knowing if you are debating on it..

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Well they are obviously different in detail, but the difference is that you believe the prayers are real, that the children are talking to God.

The detail is important. The difference is also important. It's the reason why I want everyone to know the truth and the reason why you don't want parents to exercise their right to give their children a full education.

Wicknight wrote: »

That though says nothing as to any indoctrination effect of the process, the re-enforcement in the minds of the children that they are Christian.

Slim to none surely, unless you're convinced that the Lord can actually speak or act in that persons life Otherwise it is a futile activity.

Wicknight wrote: »

I mean you wouldn't say that the North Korean mantra has no effect on the kids because Kim Jong is a real person.

Perhaps the term mantra isn't making the same cognitive connection to you as it is to me. By mantra I would mean the constant repetition of ideas concerning the Great Leader or something different.

The substance of prayer isn't to convict people necessarily of the Gospel, but to provide a means of communication to God (whatever one may think of Him at the time they do so). I don't see them as being largely comparable as their aims are wholly different.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again statistics tell a different story. The rate of parent - child religion ratio is as high in Christian as any other religion.

1) You've missed my point entirely. I was talking about the presence of indoctrination being possible in all religions including Christianity.

2) Child to religion ratio is irrelevant. One can decide rationally to continue following their own religion based on the case for doing so. You have a false notion that if one continues going to a certain church, or a certain denomination or religion that one must necessarily be indoctrinated. This isn't true. It also assumes that people who remain in their faith are blindly doing so.

Again, there are many flaws in your argument mostly based on concealed assumptions.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is whole sale ignoring statistics and the ton of examples I've already discussed.

I suspect its not much to do with your statistics, but how you are interpreting them :pac:

Wicknight wrote: »

Really? I think Catholics might disagree with that, considering the lengths they go to to ensure children are baptized and the doctrines they have for what happens to unbaptized children, and the system they have for formally leaving the church (ie once baptized you are considered Catholic until you decide otherwise)

I don't have to agree with the Vatican or should I say it your interpretation of what the Vatican says - Hopefully some of the RC posters can give their own slant on this.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again you seem to be ignoring whole sale the reality of the situation.

I don't think so

Wicknight wrote: »

Again statistics tell a different story.

See above on my view of the statistics you provide (with a smattering of interpretation)

Wicknight wrote: »

How crumbly the faith is is rather irrelevant to the issue. A Christian with a house of cards faith is still a Christian.

This gets into the minefield of who or who is not a Christian. This is debatable. Anyone can attach a badge to themselves, or their children. What is crucial is whether or not one believes that Jesus Christ is both Lord and Saviour.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a no true Scots man argument. How insincere a Christians faith is won't have much impact on the children, any more than in North Korean a teacher who hates Kim Jong will have little effect on the kids reciting the pledge.

Sometimes this is valid. If someone is a Christian, there must be something about being a Christian that distinguishes them from the rest of the world. A reading of the Christian Scriptures will inform you of this. I'd recommend 1st John if you're interested.

I think most of us on this board would strongly suggest that hating God is incompatible with being a Christian! Particularly when God can search both heart and mind

Wicknight wrote: »

Not to the effect on the child, which is the central issue.

Again, most people who are raised in Christian homes do not have any problems as a result of this upbringing. Indeed, the line of indoctrination would be the point where one is harmful with any teaching as I would see it.

If you genuinely believe that Christians teaching their children about the Gospel is harmful, you would advocate the State taking the children away from that situation if you had any heart within you or if you were a decent person.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is, but it isn't this issue. Someone pretending to be a Christian can indoctrinate a child as easily as someone who is a real Christian.

I think it shows.

Wicknight wrote: »

All other faiths are wrong if Christianity is true yet they still manage to do the same to their kids, as do atheists.

More detail required here. It's a little ambiguous.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course you were. You said a Christian prayer every morning.

Not once was I explicitly told that I was a Christian from memory. I actually remember my Mum teaching me the Lord's Prayer as a toddler, and it was along the lines of "this is how we pray to God".

Wicknight wrote: »

Again it is ridiculous naive to think that this is understood by the child to have no meaning, or no reflection on them.

Coming at it from personal experience. As a young teenager I didn't have much time to give to any of this. It didn't have all that much connection to what I perceived to be reality at that time in my life. Indeed, I now regard myself to have been utterly wrong about this since accepting Christ for myself (key phrase).

Again, there was a clear transition between this point, before it and after it. There is very little explanation for this other than that Christianity actually became a real possibility in this time from a cognitive viewpoint.

Wicknight wrote: »

They switch their denomination, which isn't surprising because you can drive down a street in America and find 5 baptist churches that all have differences and consider themselves different (and thus if you move from one to another you have technically changed your religious affiliation even if the differences are major or minor)

Culturally, even if there are 5 Baptist churches in a given road, people will more consistently look for a deeper meaning to our existence than the average Irishman or Brit will.

Wicknight wrote: »

As you say denomination is not a faith. 50% of Americans don't switch from Christianity to Islam or Scientology.

They certainly don't. However many become unaffiliated or non-believing and return to a faith. It seems to be more a cultural phenomenon rather than anything else.

Fanny Cradock

There is an interesting thread running on the same topic here. I haven't had the time to read all the posts yet but I imagine that all of you slogging it out here will get something from the conversaation. BTW, it's curious to see the same "indoctrination" argument being had there.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue is that it wasn't on the money, not even close, as I've already explained to you. You totally ignored the context of what I was talking about

I beg to differ, and will re-iterate the following from my last post:

In everyday language, you don't say you will 'indoctrinate' your child with morals or manners etc even though its a valid phrase. No, only when you want to convey a negative do you use the word 'indoctrinate'. You played silly buggers at the beginning of this thread saying that we indoctrinate with morals, manners etc and were basically saying to Christians, 'So whats your problem'? as if you didn't know the negative association.

The stance above is the problem. From a definitive POV, I have absolutely NO ISSUE with saying that I will indoctrinate my child. However, due to the negative nature of the use of this word (Jesus Camp, North Korea, brainwashing etc ), which you KNOW, it should never be used. Just like you would NOT use it to convey how you would bestow a moral or mannerly framework on a child. Its a pejorative term. Its more synonymous with brainwashing than teaching. Thats why an anti-theist will use it when speaking in the context of religion.

That is patently untrue, you just ignore that fact because it doesn't fit the particular narrative in your head about "atheist like me"

We indoctrinate our children all the time to social conventions such as don't hit your friends or don't play in the road.

THAT IS THE CONTENTION. You are trying to give the impression that it is legitimate to use the term 'indoctrinate', when in reality, due to its negative association, and its association with brainwashing, you would NEVER use the term to describe teaching children social conventions etc. When anti-theists use the term 'indoctrinate' it is to convey this 'brainwashing'. You know that, and that is why I asked you from the start to quit with the nonsense about it.

I could go on but I'm debating with myself

It wouldn't be the first time.

You were involved in that original debate but have obviously just selectively forgot everything that was told you. Or you are still holding a grudge from that debate because your points were contradicted.

That must be it Wicknight.

Either way your whole objection based on what you assume I'm saying when I have repeatably told you the opposite

My contention, is that firstly you act dim when people object to you using the term indoctrinate. You use Phelps etc as 'evidence' that people get indoctrinated in Christianity. NOBODY argued otherwise! (Calls to mind what you said earlier 'I could go on but I'm debating with myself':pac:)
You tried to play dim again talking about how we indoctrinate kids on morals etc, when you know full well that such a term is NOT used to describe bestowing morals etc on kids. Rather, it is used to paint a picture of brainwashing. THAT is the premise everyone objects to. That is YOUR position when it comes to Christians teaching their children the TRUTH of Christ. Whereas you would have no issue with someone saying that they would teach their children to be moral, mannerly etc as you value these things. You object to it being teaching etc when it comes to Christianity due to your disdain of it, so pejoratives are used to convey this negative POV.

EPIC FAIL

Indeed.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is an interesting thread running on the same topic here. I haven't had the time to read all the posts yet but I imagine that all of you slogging it out here will get something from the conversaation. BTW, it's curious to see the same "indoctrination" argument being had there.

LOL, its spooky how similar it is:)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats why an anti-theist will use it when speaking in the context of religion.

I'm an anti-theist, I just did use it and I didn't use it in the sense that you are telling me I would have as an anti-theist.

So you want to lecture me about how I should use my words in my goal as being anti-theist so you can then express faux annoyance at my dishonesty?

Pull the other one Jimi.

JimiTime wrote: »

THAT IS THE CONTENTION. You are trying to give the impression that it is legitimate to use the term 'indoctrinate', when in reality, due to its negative association, and its association with brainwashing, you would NEVER use the term to describe teaching children social conventions etc.

The contention was this

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

So the contention has changed from when I used the term I am using it in the pejorative sense, to the contention that I'm not using it in the pejorative sense but I should be because I shouldn't use it unless it is being used in the pejorative sense as an anti-theist.

So you have gone from telling me what I really mean to telling me what I shouldn't do.

Once again you have the audacity to attack me for being dishonest :rolleyes:

JimiTime wrote: »

When anti-theists use the term 'indoctrinate' it is to convey this 'brainwashing'.

I'm an anti-theist. I used the term "indoctrinate" and it wasn't to convey brainwashing. In fact

Wicknight wrote: »

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

So let me guess, I'm being an anti-theist wrong, or "dishonestly" :rolleyes:

The only issue here is (again) all this doesn't fit into your narrative of what those who disagree with you are like, it doesn't allow you do just dismiss them. It seems to piss you off that "atheists like me" don't fit neatly into your view of the world. You are going to sit there and tell me I'm being dishonest for not matching up to the ridiculous characture of an anti-theist you have in your head. Like I said, epic fail.

lmaopml

Wicknight can 'anti-theists' indoctrinate? If so, why are you only arguing the Christians? Unless you believe being Christian and indoctrination in the sense you understand it is singularly more destructive?

Or do you actually believe atheist indoctrination is 'less harmful' to the poor children...?

Festus

lmaopml wrote: »

Wicknight can 'anti-theists' indoctrinate? If so, why are you only arguing the Christians? Unless you believe being Christian and indoctrination in the sense you understand it is singularly more destructive?

Or do you actually believe atheist indoctrination is 'less harmful' to the poor children...?

A little time browsing the A&A board is enough to get a full understanding of indoctrination

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is an interesting thread running on the same topic here. I haven't had the time to read all the posts yet but I imagine that all of you slogging it out here will get something from the conversaation. BTW, it's curious to see the same "indoctrination" argument being had there.

That article is written by someone who clearly has no children, or if they have, have not spent enough time with them to really understand what children are about. A limited understanding of theology compounded by a more limited understanding of children.

Indoctrination can only really be called indoctrination if you are attempting to inculcate a lie, a falsehood.

Children cannot be fooled which is why no child is an atheist.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Wicknight can 'anti-theists' indoctrinate? If so, why are you only arguing the Christians? Unless you believe being Christian and indoctrination in the sense you understand it is singularly more destructive?

Or do you actually believe atheist indoctrination is 'less harmful' to the poor children...?

Yes, I'm not, I don't, I don't

Your insistence at trying to turn this into an theism vs atheism thing is rather tiresome.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Indoctrination can only really be called indoctrination if you are attempting to inculcate a lie, a falsehood.

Children cannot be fooled which is why no child is an atheist.

wrong on both counts.

Indoctrination doesn't require that the person know what they are teaching is a lie, in fact it works far better if they don't. It simply requires that it is taught in a manner such that it is expected to be accepted unquestioned, eg taught to young kids by a parent our authority figure as a universal truth.

Secondly if children can't be fooled how do you explain the millions of kids being raised as Muslims, or any other religion for that matter. Or the kids in china being raised as atheists

Like I said earlier the positions being put forward by you guys seem utterly divorced from reality

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Like I said earlier the positions being put forward by you guys seem utterly divorced from reality

This is a problem. You should deal with our posts as individuals rather than a collective.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, I'm not, I don't, I don't

Your insistence at trying to turn this into an theism vs atheism thing is rather tiresome.

Wicknight, I'm still trying to understand what exactly it is that you have a problem with that's all..

You mentioned that you would like to establish one thing before moving onto the next earlier in the thread - and sorry, I know those are not your words - but you get the jist..

What are trying to establish? That 'indoctrination' is most likely to occur if one is 'religious' ? I'm just wondering when we will find out what you're 'against'?

lmaopml

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a problem. You should deal with our posts as individuals rather than a collective.

Yeah that really irkes me too. People express themselves in their own unique way...

It's true too of most Atheists/Agnostics, I am friends in real life with quite a few and I would never describe them as a 'collective' as regards so many things - Least of all parenting. I'm actually dying to find out the punch line at this stage. It's a really bizzare thread...

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

wrong on both counts.

You reckon?

Wicknight wrote: »

Indoctrination doesn't require that the person know what they are teaching is a lie,

I never said it did

Wicknight wrote: »

in fact it works far better if they don't.

I agree. look at Nazism, Communism, atheism

Wicknight wrote: »

It simply requires that it is taught in a manner such that it is expected to be accepted unquestioned, eg taught to young kids by a parent our authority figure as a universal truth.

True, in the respect that we do see it as a universal truth, but within Christian teaching the right to question is accepted and ecouraged.

Wicknight wrote: »

Secondly if children can't be fooled how do you explain the millions of kids being raised as Muslims, or any other religion for that matter. Or the kids in china being raised as atheists

See above. Christains have the right to question. Muslims and Chinese atheists to the best of my knowledge do not. As I understand it the penalty for apostasy for a Muslim is death. We all know what the penalty for a Chinese reactionary is. If a Christian decides of their own free will to leave Christianity no one comes after them. You, and many of your kind on this board are evidence of this.

Wicknight wrote: »

Like I said earlier the positions being put forward by you guys seem utterly divorced from reality

"Us guys" have a marriage within us that consists of both spirituality and reality. And as Jackass implies we have many different positions and cannot be dealt with collectively. "You guys" have divorced yourselves from spirituality and suffer accordingly with a limited understanding of reality. You too may have many different positions but when it comes to your attititude to "us guys" you too appear to behave as a collective.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a problem. You should deal with our posts as individuals rather than a collective.

I will when you stop assuming you speak for other people, such as most Christians in Ireland.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

You reckon?

Well yes, that is why I said it.

Festus wrote: »

I never said it did

You just did

Indoctrination can only really be called indoctrination if you are attempting to inculcate a lie, a falsehood.

Festus wrote: »

True, in the respect that we do see it as a universal truth, but within Christian teaching the right to question is accepted and ecouraged.

You contradict that by teaching 4 year olds that God exists. 4 year olds don't have a strong desire to question. Like I already said, that is a good thing it stops them running in front of cars when you have told them not to.

Festus wrote: »

See above. Christains have the right to question.

The right to question is not the same as encouraging questioning of your faith.

Teaching your religion to a child who has no notion that they should even be asking proper questions is not encouraging questioning of your faith.

Raising a child in a family and social system that constantly treats them as if they are a Christian and then saying when they are 16 oh by the way we want you to think about all this properly, is not encouraging questioning of your faith.

You guys can say interested you are that your children question but you contradict this completely with how you go about teaching your children.

Festus wrote: »

Muslims and Chinese atheists to the best of my knowledge do not.

I'm pretty sure if you ask those teaching them they will spin you the same line, Oh of course we want all our 5 year olds out in the quad memorizing the words of Kim Jong to question everything we tell them! Of course we do, we don't encourage indoctrination here at all, that is a bad bad word.

Like I said words and actions have to match.

Festus wrote: »

"Us guys" have a marriage within us that consists of both spirituality and reality. And as Jackass implies we have many different positions and cannot be dealt with collectively.

I'll deal with you differently when one of you makes a different point. At the moment you are all singing of the same hymn sheet.

Festus wrote: »

"You guys" have divorced yourselves from spirituality and suffer accordingly with a limited understanding of reality.

My "limited" understanding of reality is backed by science and statistics.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

A little time browsing the A&A board is enough to get a full understanding of indoctrination

Can you explain what you guys are doing differently to your children?

philologos

What I said earlier wrote:

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.

What I said earlier wrote:

Great. I can only vouch for my opinion.

After saying this you became infuriated because I didn't speak for all Christians. Funny logic there surely?

What I said earlier wrote:

Actually, I would say that I differ in some respects now than what would be accepted by many in my denomination

Your dishonesty is really becoming a bit annoying. You have been the one with the aspiration to lump us into one.

I've said clearly in this thread that I can only offer you my opinion, and my opinion alone.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Wicknight, I'm still trying to understand what exactly it is that you have a problem with that's all..

I doubt that. At the moment you seem to be trying to find a way to make it sound like you don't do what I say you do.

You flip between attacking what I say to attack me.

lmaopml wrote: »

You mentioned that you would like to establish one thing before moving onto the next earlier in the thread - and sorry, I know those are not your words - but you get the jist..

What are trying to establish? That 'indoctrination' is most likely to occur if one is 'religious' ?

That if you raise a child as an ideology it is nonsensical to pretend that as they approach adulthood they just happen to pick the ideology you raised them as.

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm just wondering when we will find out what you're 'against'?

I'm against indoctrinating children with an ideology that should be decided when they are adults, be that religion political affiliation etc. As you claim to be as well.

The problem is that you act the opposite. I'm against that as well, saying one thing and doing another.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

After saying this you became infuriated because I didn't speak for all Christians.

How did I know you were going to say that :rolleyes:

The census would suggest that children are being raised as X rather than that they have chosen X until they are 18 I would assume. This isn't the most firm thinking though. I think that is the most reasonable assumption to look at when people are filling in census data. One might put a child down as Christian at 10 then they might reject it and move to Jedi or Scientology at 21. The figures can never be 100% accurate.

There's nothing "wishful" about it. It's an accurate assessment of society.

Honestly, I don't think anyone genuinely believes that because they baptise their child as an infant that they are automatically a Christian for life.

Most Christians who are genuinely passionate about their faith won't be interested in "attaching" anything. Rather they will be interested in encouraging Jesus to be at the centre of peoples lives. Attaching is meaningless. I could call anyone a Christian, but whether or not they are actually convinced that Jesus is Lord is another issue.

Again, most people who are raised in Christian homes do not have any problems as a result of this upbringing.

You speak for Christians everywhere when ever you tell me this isn't what they are doing or trying to do or what they want to do.

philologos

OK Wicknight which is it. You're annoyed about me not speaking for Christians, or you are annoyed about me speaking for Christians, or is it a Hegelian form of synthesis whereby I'm damned if I do or damned if I don't. This is the reason why discussing with you is frustrating.

Funny that numerous quotes that you've cherrypicked signify that it is opinion such as "I don't think" and "I think"

I don't claim to represent anyone but myself, and even then who knows :pac:

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm against indoctrinating children with an ideology that should be decided when they are adults, be that religion political affiliation etc.

I'm at a bit of a loss as how you yourself would raise children without edging them towards your way of thinking. I mean, you espouse rationalist/empiricist/hard evidence based ideologies so isn't safe to suppose you as advising them to evaluate all-ideology-comers by application of said ideological tools?

I really don't see how a child can be raised in an ideological vacuum.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

4 year olds don't have a strong desire to question.

Why?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

You guys can say interested you are that your children question but you contradict this completely with how you go about teaching your children.

How do we go about teaching our children?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

I'll deal with you differently when one of you makes a different point. At the moment you are all singing of the same hymn sheet.

None of whom appears to agree with you. What does that tell you?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

I'll deal with you differently when one of you makes a different point. At the moment you are all singing of the same hymn sheet.

Actually, if you'd read the posts in this thread you'd see that we actually aren't. You're far better than this calibre of discussion Wicknight, that's probably whats the most disappointing thing about the whole thread.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

OK Wicknight which is it. You're annoyed about me not speaking for Christians, or you are annoyed about me speaking for Christians

I'm not annoyed about you doing either of things. I'm frustrated that you feel the need to stop to complain about how you are only speaking for yourself and then every few posts make claims about what you think most of the Christians in Ireland (or further afield) think.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is the reason why discussing with you is frustrating.

I'm not the one stopping to complain about "dishonesty". You and JimiTime should start a club or something.

Jakkass wrote: »

Funny that numerous quotes that you've cherrypicked signify that it is opinion such as "I don't think" and "I think"

I would imagine everything you say is your opinion.

But when you say something like most Christians you are clearly not simply expressing your opinion on how you would raise your children. You are expressing your opinion on how you believe "most Christians" would raise their children.

So there is no point kicking the toys out of your pram and saying you are only speaking for yourself. I've no problem with you presenting your opinion of what you think most Christians believe. I do have a problem with you stopping to complain when we then start discussing what you think most Christians believe.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

None of whom appears to agree with you. What does that tell you?

That you guys see nothing wrong with any of this?

philologos

Wicknight: I guess its kind of up to you whether or not you wish to continually make dishonest accusations rather than discussing the actual topic you proposed to discuss about. Which do you want?

As I said, you can do much better.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

How do we go about teaching our children?

Well by doing that, teaching them at an early age the "truth" of your faith.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: I guess its kind of up to you whether or not you wish to continually make dishonest accusations rather than discussing the actual topic you proposed to discuss about. Which do you want?

As I said, you can do much better.

I haven't made a single dishonest claim about you, and I would very much like to discuss the actual topic which out constantly stopping to defend myself from the charge that I'm making dishonest claims about you or dishonest claims in general which seems to be Jimi's particular bee.

Between the attacks on me being dishonest, being anti-theist, being atheist, not knowing about Christianity, my "real" motivations, not caring about children etc etc the actual topic seems to be the last thing on most people's minds.

You always know someone is on to something on the Christianity forum when a thread consists of mostly replies from Christians attacking the integrity of the original poster rather than the topic he or she actually brought up.

philologos

One example of many at this point.

Most of us would like to discuss this with you without your nonsense assumption that we are a hivemind, and without such accusations. It's a shame honestly!

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

My "limited" understanding of reality is backed by science and statistics.

So is ours, as far as reality goes and thought much of the statistics needs to be questioned, but it doesn't really answer questions like "why are we here?", a typical four year old question by the way, one of the some 400-500 a four year old averages per day.

Which answer is better for a four year old

- due to a cosmological accident there was a big bang and after the big bang a series of further random accidents caused the earth to coalesce around a sun which also coalesed under gravity and warmed the earth and then as if my magic because we can't explain it life appeared after some crazy sequence of chemical accidents but to be honest we really don't know for sure and probably never will until a time machine is invented which according to modern physics is an impossibility.

or

-we believe God created the universe and the earth and life and us
?

The former is likely to put them off science for life. The latter will of course lead on to questions like "who is God?" and "what is the universe?" and through this both science and theology can be explored.

A child growing up in a western house hold is at some stage in their life going to meet other children who are being brought up with Christian teaching and Christian values. What do you say to them when they come home saying "Little Johnnys Grandma just went to Heaven. Where's that Daddy?" Are you going to start calling little Johnnys parents liars?

To us atheism is a lie. All you can teach your children are lies because you can never prove to them that what you believe to be the truth is true.

We teach our children what we believe to be true.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Most of us would like to discuss this with you without your nonsense assumption that we are a hivemind, and without such accusations. It's a shame honestly!

Your posts suggest otherwise, but ok. What exactly, related to the topic, would you like to discuss?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

So is ours, as far as reality goes and thought much of the statistics needs to be questioned, but it doesn't really answer questions like "why are we here?"

That isn't the question. The question is how does the brain of a human child work.

Festus wrote: »

Which answer is better for a four year old

Again that isn't the question.

The question is will a 4 year old rationally assess and question to an adult level information they are told by a parent of authority figure

The answer by the way is "No".

Festus wrote: »

or

-we believe God created the universe and the earth and life and us
?

Or "God created the universe and the Earth and life and us"

Festus wrote: »

The former is likely to put them off science for life. The latter will of course lead on to questions like "who is God?" and "what is the universe?" and through this both science and theology can be explored.

Neither of what you said were the scientific explanation for existence. That that this has much baring on what we are discussing. The issue isn't if what you are telling your kids is right or not, it is whether what you are telling your kid with be rationally assessed or simply accepted a truth.

Festus wrote: »

A child growing up in a western house hold is at some stage in their life going to meet other children who are being brought up with Christian teaching and Christian values. What do you say to them when they come home saying "Little Johnnys Grandma just went to Heaven. Where's that Daddy?" Are you going to start calling little Johnnys parents liars?

I'm going to tell my kid that Little Johnny's parents are Christian, that they believe X Y and Z. I might also tell him that LIttle Mohammads parents are Muslim and believe A B C and Little Omar's parents are Hindu and believe I J K. I may ask him would he like to visit a church or a mosque to see what Little Jonny or Little Mohammands parent do so he can better understand it.

If he asks me am I a Christian or a Muslim I will say no I'm not. If he asks me does that mean I'm going to hell I will tell him that is what Little Johnny's parents may believe but I don't believe so.

You will notice that at no point am I telling him what he should believe or what he is.

Festus wrote: »

To us atheism is a lie.

And?

Festus wrote: »

All you can teach your children are lies because you can never prove to them that what you believe to be the truth is true.

I wouldn't consider it a lie to teach my children that Little Johnny's parents are Christian. Would you?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

That you guys see nothing wrong with any of this?

So what is wrong with this?

We become parents as Christians and it is our Christian duty to see that our children are brought up properly and brought up as Christians.

You seem to think that teaching children about our faith and what we believe is wrong.

Do you not see what is wrong with your position?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Well by doing that, teaching them at an early age the "truth" of your faith.

and that is what we do.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm going to tell my kid that Little Johnny's parents are Christian, that they believe X Y and Z. I might also tell him that LIttle Mohammads parents are Muslim and believe A B C and Little Omar's parents are Hindu and believe I J K. I may ask him would he like to visit a church or a mosque to see what Little Jonny or Little Mohammands parent do so he can better understand it.

If he asks me am I a Christian or a Muslim I will say no I'm not. If he asks me does that mean I'm going to hell I will tell him that is what Little Johnny's parents may believe but I don't believe so.

Fair enough. But what of all the other questions that will follow from this?

Wicknight wrote: »

You will notice that at no point am I telling him what he should believe or what he is.

I've noticed. So what do you when your child asks you what s\he is and what to believe in?

Just out of curiousity, how old are your children?