Doing everything your power to ensure your children are Christian

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

So what is wrong with this?

It is heavily influencing your children to choose Christianity over other religions because it is your religion and because you are teaching it to them as truth and their religion.

Festus wrote: »

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

You aren't teaching your children about your faith and what you believe. Or more accurately you aren't teaching it to them in that context (I believe X Y and Z rather than X Y and Z is true), that the context that it is what you believe and when they are old they have to ask themselves do they believe it to.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

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

Which ones? You will have to be a bit more specific.

Festus wrote: »

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

I wouldn't tell my child what religion he or she is or what religion he or she has to believe in.

That very fact that you ask that question goes to demonstrating the thinking going on here.

I don't have children yet by the way, this is hypothetical.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

It is heavily influencing your children to choose Christianity over other religions because it is your religion and because you are teaching it to them as truth and their religion.

and what's wrong with that?

Wicknight wrote: »

You aren't teaching your children about your faith and what you believe. Or more accurately you aren't teaching it to them in that context (I believe X Y and Z rather than X Y and Z is true), that the context that it is what you believe and when they are old they have to ask themselves do they believe it to.

How do you know? Last time I looked you weren't in the room at the time.
It is up to me and their mother how they are taught - not you!

Are you so arrogant that you think you can advise me on how I teach my children or that you think your method is better?

You teach your children whatever way you want, and I'll teach mine!

philologos

If it were genuinely harmful, Wicknight and others would be advocating social services to take children away from their parents in this situation. Any individual who was moral, and who thought this was appalling would be advocating for this.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Which ones? You will have to be a bit more specific.

I no longer have the mind of a four year old, and I no longer have any interest in indulging your juvenile pursuites.

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't tell my child what religion he or she is or what religion he or she has to believe in.

Avoiding the question. I didn't ask what you would not do. I asked what you would do - how would you answer. I guess you have no answer.

Wicknight wrote: »

That very fact that you ask that question goes to demonstrating the thinking going on here.

Asking questions is a core element of teaching. That demostrates that there is thinking going on here.

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't have children yet by the way, this is hypothetical.

We know that already. Maybe jog on and come back when you know what you are talking about.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

If it were genuinely harmful, Wicknight and others would be advocating social services to take children away from their parents in this situation. Any individual who was moral, and who thought this was appalling would be advocating for this.

Who says him and his atheistic ilk are not trawling these boards looking for such evidence?

The anti-discrimination laws were discussed elsewhere. How long before such laws are deployed against parents to prevent them discriminating against other religions and none?

How long before anti-discriminaton laws are deployed to shut down the Christian schools or force them to teach other religions or none?

Hypothetically speaking of course - we all know that's not going to happen, don't we :rolleyes:

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight, what do you mean 'I am trying to find a way to make it sound like I don't do what you say I do?' What are you 'saying' I do? I'd love to know....

You flip between attacking what I say to attack me.

That is not true Wicknight, I have asked for clarification of what you are trying to say because I honestly don't get where you're going - and no I don't believe I attacked you at all. I actually quite admire the way you come onto the Christianity forum and at least try to understand what it is that you are speaking about...

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.

The proof is in the pudding Wicknight. You mention that indoctrination can happen when one holds to an ideology at the detriment of knowledge about other ideologies. That can happen in any home - Any single home or set of parents can be so obsessed with an ideology that they limit their offspring or colour their worldview.

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.

Seriously, this lack of basic understanding about those who believe there is a God is beyond unreasonable. I shouldn't bring my children to mass, I shouldn't pray with them, I should sneak around and not let them know their Mum believes in God just in case I 'sway' them and alienate them from 'your' worldview or those of other faiths? I contend, I would be seriously damaging my children if I were to leave them a total blank slate till they are eighteen year of age - nobody does this, no parent. You might have a point if I handcuffed them when they were teens and dragged them physically to mass or derided them or blocked certain friendships or censored them from the world - but as it stands, that's not the norm imo in 'most' western households - no matter the worldview.

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

How do I act? I think you are being considerably unfair, unreasonable, unrealistic, and judgemental Wicknight. I don't know where you picked that up..

eblistic

Jakkass wrote: »

If it were genuinely harmful, Wicknight and others would be advocating social services to take children away from their parents in this situation. Any individual who was moral, and who thought this was appalling would be advocating for this.

Or he could calmly and rationally argue in favour of the less harmful approach on an internet forum.

There's a bit of leap between saying something is harmful to a child and suggesting the child be taken away from its parents.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

I contend that you did, and do use it in such a manner contrary to your claim. In fact my contention has been your explanation that 'we indoctrinate with morals, social conventions' etc. I contend that neither YOU nor most people use the term 'indoctrinate' when explaining the bestowing of morals etc. Rather, both you and others reserve it for negative incidents. You also contend that indoctrination impacts a persons ability to choose another path etc. In fact, you and Jackass have been discussing/arguing this. that would imply that you ARE in fact using indoctrination in the whole 'brainwashing' context.

This indeed, is also my accusation of dishonesty against you.

So you want to lecture me about how I should use my words in my goal as being anti-theist

I'm telling you, that while you may have a way with words, and are second to few at arguing, your weasling with technicalities and playing dumb etc does not go unnoticed.

so you can then express faux annoyance at my dishonesty?

Ah, my own game.:) Well, I can say, for what its worth, that my initial annoyance of your was not faux. At this point though, I'm not annoyed.

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:

Hmmmm. You've jumped the gun, or you simply can't see past yer own nose. I am most certainly accusing you, contrary to your contradiction, that you DO use it as a Pejorative. Even if you didn't, playing dumb about theists objecting to the word and pretending to be 'frustrated' etc about it is still reason to call you out.

Your argument is akin to telling me that when you say n!gger, you are referring to people from the nigerDelta, then pretending to be frustrated when lots of black people call you up on it. YOU KNOW how the word is used. In this thread and others, you have exhibited, while denying, that you DO in fact use it in a more brainwash way. Yet here you STILL are, trying to wriggle about with technicalities and yer favourite smiley:rolleyes:

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

Really?

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

TBH, thats just an example of one of your many quotes which basically argue similar things. You may SAY, that you don't use 'indoctriantion' to denote any kind of brainwashing, but how you use it most certainly contradicts you.

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 characature of an anti-theist you have in your head. Like I said, epic fail.

What I think anti-theists (A very loose term) are or are not, matters not. Mostly when I've used the term here, I've followed it with, 'like yourself'. What matters here, is you and your claims and inconsistancies. Maybe its not blatant dishonesty, but rather being caught up in 'argument', rather than a desire for 'discussion'. You seem to contradict yourself on this thread, believing (assuming you being honest) that you are meaning one thing, while saying things which indicate you believe something else. At the same time, arguing against things people haven't said. It can be confusing I must say. You can be a hard person to keep up with. It does take checking over your previous posts to see what the hell I was arguing against to begin with. Anyway, I think this particular beef is cooked. I don't think there are many more ways of saying the same thing. You can take it, leave it or give me some rolleyes.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

If it were genuinely harmful, Wicknight and others would be advocating social services to take children away from their parents in this situation. Any individual who was moral, and who thought this was appalling would be advocating for this.

Do you believe it is a good idea for 6 year old kids to be let watch 18 cert movies by their parents?

Do you believe that any parent who does let their kids watch an 18 cert movie should have their children removed from them and put into care?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

and what's wrong with that?

From a Christian point of view or an atheist point of view?

Festus wrote: »

How do you know? Last time I looked you weren't in the room at the time.
It is up to me and their mother how they are taught - not you!

So you don't do it but if you did do it it would be none of my business. Yes, that is reassuring.

Festus wrote: »

Are you so arrogant that you think you can advise me on how I teach my children or that you think your method is better?

Again more deflection. The position shifts from I don't do it, to there is nothing wrong with doing it to how dare you tell me about my kids. All rather predictable. All pointless posturing and chest beating.

Festus wrote: »

I no longer have the mind of a four year old, and I no longer have any interest in indulging your juvenile pursuites.

So you ask me how would I answer my four year olds questions, I ask you which ones (I imagine a four year old asks a lot of questions) and you tell me you don't know. Ok, so why did you ask?

I can think of no question a four year old would ask me that I would answer "Because you are an atheist", mainly because I don't believe I get to decide my child is an atheist.

Festus wrote: »

Avoiding the question. I didn't ask what you would not do. I asked what you would do - how would you answer. I guess you have no answer.

Ok, so my theoretical child comes and asks me "Daddy what religion do I believe in"

I would answer "I don't know gum drop, what religion do you believe in?" and then start discussing it with her, explaining as best I can the different religions and what they believe.

You seem to feel a parent has to tell their child what religion they believe, and this highlights the whole issue here. What purpose do you think that serves?

Festus wrote: »

We know that already. Maybe jog on and come back when you know what you are talking about.

More posturing. Perhaps you should have a think about how you would answer your own questions Festus, and have a think about why you would answer them as you do?

Seaneh

The fact that this is even being discussed is a joke.


Christians owe it to their Children to teach them about Jesus and God's role in their lives. This is not negotiable, it is a scriptural and human requirement. How could you withhold something so important from your child? It's not even worth considering. You are arguing that we should not tell our children the most important truth there is. It's paramount to saying we shouldn't treat their illness or feed them!

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Wicknight, what do you mean 'I am trying to find a way to make it sound like I don't do what you say I do?' What are you 'saying' I do? I'd love to know....

I would have thought that would be rather obvious by now, indoctrinate your children into your religion. Sorry "bestow" your religion onto your child (you say potato I say...)

lmaopml wrote: »

That is not true Wicknight, I have asked for clarification of what you are trying to say because I honestly don't get where you're going - and no I don't believe I attacked you at all.

No, you have repeatably asked for clarification of why I'm saying it, what is my motivation. That is generally the sign that someone is setting up a personal attack, and given your charge of me being bias earlier in the thread you can appreciate why I'm weary of such questions.

lmaopml wrote: »

The proof is in the pudding Wicknight.

Well yes, that has be consistently my point. The vast vast vast majority of people remain in the faith they were raised in, irrespective of what the faith is. This strongly suggests that most people make determination of faith based on what they are told by their parents, not what they rationally decide for themselves in later life (not all, most). Couple that with what we know from child psychology and the picture is clear.

How bad that is is up to you guys.

lmaopml wrote: »

You mention that indoctrination can happen when one holds to an ideology at the detriment of knowledge about other ideologies. That can happen in any home - Any single home or set of parents can be so obsessed with an ideology that they limit their offspring or colour their worldview.

That isn't quite what I said, but reasonably close

lmaopml wrote: »

Seriously, this lack of basic understanding about those who believe there is a God is beyond unreasonable. I shouldn't bring my children to mass, I shouldn't pray with them, I should sneak around and not let them know their Mum believes in God just in case I 'sway' them and alienate them from 'your' worldview or those of other faiths?

I've never said any of that stuff. All I've ever said is you shouldn't tell your kids they are Christian, nor treat them as if they are Christian, not tell them the doctrine of Christianity as if it is established fact if you want them to genuinely choose Christianity when they are older.

If you don't want them to genuinely choose Christianity when they are older, then fire away.

I think it is the wrong way to raise your kids but I'm not going to demand child serves remove them any more than I would if you let them watch 18 cert videos or gave them Sugar Puffs for breakfast and dinner.

lmaopml wrote: »

I contend, I would be seriously damaging my children if I were to leave them a total blank slate till they are eighteen year of age - nobody does this, no parent.

If you educate your children about what you believe (in the context that it is what you believe, not what everyone believes or should believe), educate your children about what other people believe, educate them about different religions (not in the context that they are wrong because Christianity is right), educate your children about what their friends non-Christian parents believe, the differences in religions, the history of religions, send them to schools where they are exposed to multiple view points and positions with regard to religion, and most importantly avoid any implication that they are Christian or should choose Christianity because you believe it is true then when your kids are older they are not a blank slate.

They are a neutral slate free to choose the religion that makes sense to them and instilled with enough non-bias knowledge that this decision is made on what religion makes the most sense to them, not what religion you believe in.

But like I said if you don't care then fire away doing what you are doing.

lmaopml wrote: »

You might have a point if I handcuffed them when they were teens and dragged them physically to mass or derided them or blocked certain friendships or censored them from the world - but as it stands, that's not the norm imo in 'most' western households - no matter the worldview.

Like I said none of this is necessary. If you want to maximize the chances that they will be (or claim to be) Christians when they grow up all you have to do is consistently re-enforce the notion to them when they are young that they are Christians and that Christianity is true and other religions are wrong (you don't even actually have to explictly state that since it is implied by the first bit).

Do this and sit back and the odds are your kids will continue being (or claiming to be) Christians throughout most of their lives.

lmaopml wrote: »

How do I act?

Like you are merely educating your kids and that they are going to rationally and adultly choose Christianity because it is the true religion, not because you told them it was the true religion.

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

Christians owe it to their Children to teach them about Jesus and God's role in their lives. This is not negotiable, it is a scriptural and human requirement. How could you withhold something so important from your child? It's not even worth considering. You are arguing that we should not tell our children the most important truth there is. It's paramount to saying we shouldn't treat their illness or feed them!

I'm arguing you should not tell your children the most "important truth there is" as a statement of fact if you want them when they are older, when they can understand it, to come to the same conclusion you did, rather than merely accept it because their parents told it to them when they were to young to do anything other than merely accept what they were being told.

If you want them to merely accept it because their parents told them, fire away. I think it is a bad idea and a hypocritical idea. But I'm not going to call child services on you :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

Bump for Wicknight - in case you missed in during the Flud

antiskeptic wrote:

I'm at a bit of a loss as how you yourself (Wicknight) 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: »

From a Christian point of view or an atheist point of view?

Does it matter?

Wicknight wrote: »

So you don't do it but if you did do it it would be none of my business. Yes, that is reassuring.

Do I come in to your place of work and tell you how to sweep up? No I don't.
So yes, it is none of your business and you don't have any right to tell me how to do my job with my children.

Wicknight wrote: »

So you ask me how would I answer my four year olds questions, I ask you which ones (I imagine a four year old asks a lot of questions) and you tell me you don't know. Ok, so why did you ask?

To see what kind of lame answer your imagination could come up with. Job done.

Wicknight wrote: »

I can think of no question a four year old would ask me that I would answer "Because you are an atheist", mainly because I don't believe I get to decide my child is an atheist.

What about " Why don't we believe in God Daddy?"

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so my theoretical child comes and asks me "Daddy what religion do I believe in"


I would answer "I don't know gum drop, what religion do you believe in?" and then start discussing it with her, explaining as best I can the different religions and what they believe.

Maybe come back when you've moved on from your theoretical sex life and have some practical experience with children of your own then this can be discussed further.

Wicknight wrote: »

You seem to feel a parent has to tell their child what religion they believe, and this highlights the whole issue here. What purpose do you think that serves?

No it's not a feeling. We have a God given right and duty to bring our children up as Christians and a constitutional right as the primary educators of our children to see that they are taught correctly. That servers the highest purpose married Christians are called to.

Wicknight wrote: »

More posturing. Perhaps you should have a think about how you would answer your own questions Festus, and have a think about why you would answer them as you do?

Oh I do but I have no intention of giving you the benefit. Mind you, you are good practice for dealing with six year olds.

Dewdropdeb

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm arguing you should not tell your children the most "important truth there is" as a statement of fact if you want them when they are older, when they can understand it, to come to the same conclusion you did, rather than merely accept it because their parents told it to them when they were to young to do anything other than merely accept what they were being told.

If you want them to merely accept it because their parents told them, fire away. I think it is a bad idea and a hypocritical idea. But I'm not going to call child services on you :rolleyes:

Well that's exactly what my parents did. I was dragged to mass screaming and kicking all through my teenage years. There was no discussion as to WHY all this teaching was true, just that it was, and I needed to believe it. It sucked. I thought it was all a bunch of crap and I turned away from the church for years.

It was only years later through my own explorations of faith and religion (from Wicca to various Protestant denominations to Buddhism) that I came back to the Church realising that hey, the old foggies were actually on to something.

So in my case, your assumption is proved wrong. They tried to indoctrinate me and it made me run. Does said indoctrination have anything to do with me returning to the faith? Definitely... I doubt without that grounding I would have even looked into Catholicism in my youth, but it wasn't because of it that I actually came back to the Church, it was because of my own explorations and studies - something you say would not occur if a parent tries to bring a child up with faith.

I know now what NOT to do with my own children, but I most certainly will be raising them Catholic as best I can until it's their turn to make their own decisions, as I did. I will personally be putting a lot of stress on the WHY of church teachings as opposed to just expecting them to believe blindly. I welcome their questions - which I'm sure will be deeper and more thought-provoking as they grow - as an opportunity for both them and me to grow in faith.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Does it matter?

Well yes.

Festus wrote: »

Do I come in to your place of work and tell you how to sweep up? No I don't.
So yes, it is none of your business and you don't have any right to tell me how to do my job with my children.

Well actually I do. You have the right to ignore me. Currently you aren't exercising that right.

Festus wrote: »

To see what kind of lame answer your imagination could come up with. Job done.

And now we revert to the personal attacks. All very predictable.

Festus wrote: »

What about " Why don't we believe in God Daddy?"

The answer to that question would be you can believe in God if you want son, and then explain why I don't believe in God.

Again can you explain why a parent would be required to tell their child what religion they should believe in?

Festus wrote: »

Maybe come back when you've moved on from your theoretical sex life and have some practical experience with children of your own then this can be discussed further.

Perhaps you can explain to me what part of actually having a son would change my answers?

Festus wrote: »

No it's not a feeling. We have a God given right and duty to bring our children up as Christians and a constitutional right as the primary educators of our children to see that they are taught correctly.

You didn't answer my question. Why do you feel that I would have to give my child a religion, or atheism, if they asked what do they believe in?

Festus wrote: »

Oh I do but I have no intention of giving you the benefit. Mind you, you are good practice for dealing with six year olds.

I answered your questions. Are you just posturing now because you didn't like the answers?

Zombrex

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

Well that's exactly what my parents did. I was dragged to mass screaming and kicking all through my teenage years. There was no discussion as to WHY all this teaching was true, just that it was, and I needed to believe it. It sucked. I thought it was all a bunch of crap and I turned away from the church for years.

It was only years later through my own explorations of faith and religion (from Wicca to various Protestant denominations to Buddhism) that I came back to the Church realising that hey, the old foggies were actually on to something.

So in my case, your assumption is proved wrong. They tried to indoctrinate me and it made me run. Does said indoctrination have anything to do with me returning to the faith? Definitely... I doubt without that grounding I would have even looked into Catholicism in my youth, but it wasn't because of it that I actually came back to the Church, it was because of my own explorations and studies - something you say would not occur if a parent tries to bring a child up with faith.

I know now what NOT to do with my own children, but I most certainly will be raising them Catholic as best I can until it's their turn to make their own decisions, as I did. I will personally be putting a lot of stress on the WHY of church teachings as opposed to just expecting them to believe blindly. I welcome their questions - which I'm sure will be deeper and more thought-provoking as they grow - as an opportunity for both them and me to grow in faith.

So, you were raised as a Catholic and now you are a Catholic and this proves indoctrination doesn't happen....

Why do you think you came back to Catholicism as opposed at any of the other religions in the world, of which there are thousands?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm at a bit of a loss as how you yourself (Wicknight) would raise children without edging them towards your way of thinking.

I never said I wouldn't

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

I never suggested they should be, in fact I said a few times I think this is impossible. The issue is what the ideology is.

optogirl

Festus wrote: »

Maybe come back when you've moved on from your theoretical sex life and have some practical experience with children of your own then this can be discussed further.

Well you've just negated all your arguments by getting into petty mud-slinging.

Dewdropdeb

Wicknight wrote: »

So, you were raised as a Catholic and now you are a Catholic and this proves indoctrination doesn't happen....

You asserted that children raised in a religious home do not make their own decisions. My case proves differently.

Why do you think you came back to Catholicism as opposed at any of the other religions in the world, of which there are thousands?

A philosophy course I took that introduced me to the writings of Edith Stein. Fascinating. The fact that it paralleled and more importantly EXPLAINED what my parents had tried to force me to believe was just icing on the cake. Perhaps I was more predisposed to accept it given my upbringing, but I most certainly came to the decision to "revert" if you will all by my self.

You keep arguing that raising a child religiously means they won't make that decision by themselves. It's a big assumption on your part. Even if someone comes back to the faith they were brought up in - if they did so of their own accord and not because their parents told them to (as I would hope most adults do) - it renders your argument invalid.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I never said I wouldn't

Okay.

So we have Arnold the Atheist and Charlie the Catholic each telling their kids what they think the case is. They can do this by commission (positively stating such and such to be the case eg: "there is a God" and "there isn't a god"). Or by omission (letting the environment around shape the view of the child in the direction they consider the 'truth'). Or they can let the environment around shape the kids aside from what they themselves believe is the case.

What material difference exists between what Arnold does and what Charlie does?

I never suggested they should be, in fact I said a few times I think this is impossible. The issue is what the ideology is.

What's the issue with it? Forgive my not having followed the thread in the case you need to repeat yourself.

Zombrex

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

You asserted that children raised in a religious home do not make their own decisions. My case proves differently.

No that wasn't my assertion. My assertion what that what you are taught as a child will be excepted and heavily influence the child.

And as I said you are a Catholic, right?

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

A philosophy course I took that introduced me to the writings of Edith Stein. Fascinating. The fact that it paralleled and more importantly EXPLAINED what my parents had tried to force me to believe was just icing on the cake. Perhaps I was more predisposed to accept it given my upbringing, but I most certainly came to the decision to "revert" if you will all by my self.

How would you possibly know if the opposite was true?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay.

So we have Arnold the Atheist and Charlie the Catholic each telling their kids what they think the case is. They can do this by commission (positively stating such and such to be the case eg: "there is a God" and "there isn't a god"). Or by omission (letting the environment around shape the view of the child in the direction they consider the 'truth'). Or they can let the environment around shape the kids aside from what they themselves believe is the case.

What material difference exists between what Arnold does and what Charlie does?

None. As I said this isn't a theist vs atheism thing.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's the issue with it? Forgive my not having followed the thread in the case you need to repeat yourself.

The issue is that it will heavily influence the child as to what they view as true. Kids raised as Catholic are much more likely to be Catholic, kids raised as Muslims are much more likely to be Muslim, kids raised as Hindu are much more likely to be Hindu. Kids raised as atheist are much more likely to be atheist. Etc

The truth of what they are raised as plays second fiddle to the influence the parents have by raising them as their religion.

So anyone genuinely concerned with their children choosing a religion (or non-religion) based on them assessing the truth of the religion, rather than because of influence by the parents, should try as much as possible to avoid influencing their children to their particular religion.

Like I've said to all the other posters, if someone doesn't care about this then fire away.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Well actually I do. You have the right to ignore me. Currently you aren't exercising that right.

because at the moment I have not intention of letting you away with spreading your lies. But I may change my mind on that.

Wicknight wrote: »

And now we revert to the personal attacks. All very predictable.

Who called who a posturing chest beater?

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain to me what part of actually having a son would change my answers?

sexist too! Why no surprise there. Something against women have you?
What would you do to your daughter?

Wicknight wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. Why do you feel that I would have to give my child a religion, or atheism, if they asked what do they believe in?

My exact words were "I've .. So what do you when your child asks you what s\he is and what to believe in?"

which you changed to "Daddy what religion do I believe in"

There is no "do" in my submission and your addition changes the question significantly.

Little games like this show me what kind of person you are.

Wicknight wrote: »

I answered your questions. Are you just posturing now because you didn't like the answers?

No you didn't. You changed my questions in to ones more suitable to what you want to fit with your particular view and answered your own questions and then you accuse me of posturing because I don't like your answers and that's the best you can come up with. Posturing.

Grow up.

Festus

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

Well that's exactly what my parents did. I was dragged to mass screaming and kicking all through my teenage years. There was no discussion as to WHY all this teaching was true, just that it was, and I needed to believe it. It sucked. I thought it was all a bunch of crap and I turned away from the church for years.

It was only years later through my own explorations of faith and religion (from Wicca to various Protestant denominations to Buddhism) that I came back to the Church realising that hey, the old foggies were actually on to something.

So in my case, your assumption is proved wrong. They tried to indoctrinate me and it made me run. Does said indoctrination have anything to do with me returning to the faith? Definitely... I doubt without that grounding I would have even looked into Catholicism in my youth, but it wasn't because of it that I actually came back to the Church, it was because of my own explorations and studies - something you say would not occur if a parent tries to bring a child up with faith.

I know now what NOT to do with my own children, but I most certainly will be raising them Catholic as best I can until it's their turn to make their own decisions, as I did. I will personally be putting a lot of stress on the WHY of church teachings as opposed to just expecting them to believe blindly. I welcome their questions - which I'm sure will be deeper and more thought-provoking as they grow - as an opportunity for both them and me to grow in faith.

Thank you and well said that man.

the title is "Doing everything in your power to ensure your Children are Christian" which is a slight because any Christian will adopt the attitude
"Doing everything in your power to ensure your children are brought up Christian" and there is the potential to misread the title accordingly. The difference is not subtle.

The OPs title is obviously couched to imply forced learning, or to use the OPs own term "indoctrination" which is not what happens. However it does suit what appears at first to be a narrow minded and simplistic view of what Christian parents do by imposing his own imagination on the private lives of others.

His responses that reference "indoctrination" in the accusatory and his persistence despite all rebuttals are possibly indicative of recent indoctrination that hte subconscious is attempting to deal with. Or it maybe nothing more than a poorly diguised false flag approach to this discussion.

In my education questioning was encouraged. Still didn't stop me 'leaving' for a time thought atheism was never a consideration. Too easily dismissed and I had no intention of hanging around with sad bitter little Romophobes. What was a consideration was what Catholic belief is, how it is taught and how to find the truth, and what it means when you re-discover the truth on your own. Can on indoctrinate oneself? I imagine that's tricky.

As parents we do consider what went wrong for us, if it did, and if it didn't we should consider it anyway, and how not to make the same mistakes again. Of course we'll probably make different mistakes but that's human nature and life.

Festus

If you put someone on yur ignore list do they know?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue is that it will heavily influence the child as to what they view as true. Kids raised as Catholic are much more likely to be Catholic, kids raised as Muslims are much more likely to be Muslim, kids raised as Hindu are much more likely to be Hindu. Kids raised as atheist are much more likely to be atheist. Etc.

Hence my point about the impossibility of an idealogical vacuum. The kids are going to be influence whatever happens

Indeed. And if the parental influence is rendered neutral, the children will be handed over to the next most infuential source. And in our culture at present that is a largely godless one. And so the child is more likely to wind up godless (if your thesis influence-determines-worldview is true).

The problem, it appears, is ensuring the child won't be swayed this way or that until they are old enough to evaluate for themselves. This, I think, is just not possible.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

If you put someone on yur ignore list do they know?

Assumng Wicknight doesn't reply, you'll have your answer

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assumng Wicknight doesn't reply, you'll have your answer

Hmm.. it seems to block all previous occurrences too and it's as if he was just a figment of my imagination

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. And if the parental influence is rendered neutral, the children will be handed over to the next most infuential source. And in our culture at present that is a largely godless one.

Which influence is that? And by Godless do you mean non-Christian?

If your child is being told by you (their parent) that religion is there choice and they see a billboard by a Muslim groups saying, I don't know, All humans are Muslim or something (just trying to imagine a godless influence), I'm not sure how this means the child is handed over to the influential source.

The parent is still heavily influencing the child. But they are influencing the child with the ideology that it is there choice as to what religion they should pick.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

because at the moment I have not intention of letting you away with spreading your lies. But I may change my mind on that.

Oh no, please don't. Being constantly insulted by you is such fun.

Festus wrote: »

Who called who a posturing chest beater?

I did after you stopped trying to make points in reply to what I was saying and just started insulting me.

Festus wrote: »

sexist too! Why no surprise there. Something against women have you?
What would you do to your daughter?

So can I take it you can't explain this to me?

Festus wrote: »

My exact words were "I've .. So what do you when your child asks you what s\he is and what to believe in?"

which you changed to "Daddy what religion do I believe in"

Can you explain this fundamental difference? What is the fundamental difference between my son asking what is he and what does he believe in?

Festus wrote: »

Little games like this show me what kind of person you are.

And that would be?

Festus wrote: »

No you didn't. You changed my questions in to ones more suitable to what you want to fit with your particular view and answered your own questions and then you accuse me of posturing because I don't like your answers and that's the best you can come up with. Posturing.

LOL, how did I do that?

If my child asked me "what s\he is" I would say she is what ever she wants to be. Which is what I already said. :rolleyes:

Can you explain this fundamental difference? Or is this just more posturing?

Festus wrote: »

If you put someone on yur ignore list do they know?

Groan :rolleyes:

You act like Ive invaded your thread. I started this thread. If you have nothing constructive to add simply don't reply. I'm not burning to find out what Festus thinks about what I've said, particularly since your posts have descended into nothing more than a string of insults :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Which influence is that? And by Godless do you mean non-Christian?

TV, peers, teachers and their worldviews, advertising... that kind of thing.

For the purposes of this discussion godless would mean the secularised, materialistic society of 2010 Ireland.

If your child is being told by you (their parent) that religion is there choice and they see a billboard by a Muslim groups saying, I don't know, All humans are Muslim or something (just trying to imagine a godless influence), I'm not sure how this means the child is handed over to the influential source.

The parent is still heavily influencing the child. But they are influencing the child with the ideology that it is there choice as to what religion they should pick.

My view would be that a parent teaching their child of Gods existance is only one influence in the childs life. Whilst that influence might be considered to be an overriding one at a certain age (in the same way teaching about Santa is an overriding influence up to a certain age) it is not an influence that isn't going to be soon challenged. And challeged by viewpoints that are perceived as far more relevant and 'true' than anything the parent has to say.

If the parent does as you say and truly present a neutral face then the child must necessarily head in the direction of whatever the overriding influence is. And that influence is a godless one I hold.

Perhaps you see the influences of media, peers, teachers as neutral?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

TV, peers, teachers and their worldviews, advertising... that kind of thing.

For the purposes of this discussion godless would mean the secularised, materialistic society of 2010 Ireland.

Ok, so non-Christian (Muslim, atheists etc) or fake Christian (people claiming to be Christian but leading non-Christian lives).

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the parent does as you say and truly present a neutral face then the child must necessarily head in the direction of whatever the overriding influence is. And that influence is a godless one I hold.

I'm still not following. Why is the parent not the overriding influence?

You seem to be worried that if the child's parents don't indoctrinate him quickly into Christianity he will be indoctrinated into say Islam by Muslim media, or a wishy washy version of Christianity by, well I'm not sure?

While that may happen if the parents stop completely, but that isn't what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that parents stop influencing the kid, I'm suggesting they change what they are telling their kids, moving from influencing them to pick their religion to influencing them that it is their choice as to what religion they follow and that they should choose this based on which one makes the most sense to them, or none at all if none of them make sense.

If a parent is telling their child that it is their choice (which yes is still indoctrination) I would see this influence still be far stronger than say Muslim media.

So Muslim media is going to have a hard time convincing the kid that their parents are wrong, that they are a Muslim and they shouldn't be holding these notions that it is their choice as to what religion they follow.

That to me would seem obvious Perhaps I'm not following your question?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so non-Christian (Muslim, atheists etc) or fake Christian (people claiming to be Christian but leading non-Christian lives).

I was attempting to avoid the narrow focus suggested in the labelling above, to step away from the limited field of religion/atheism. But if, for example, by "fake Christian" you mean someone who had water poured over their head at birth and hasn't given God/ morality/meaning-of-life questions a moments thought since, then we're getting somewhere. And if by "atheist" you mean someone who for want of ever considering the issue of God happens to be without (a) belief in God (theism) - even if they've never wondered enough to categorise themselves so - then even better.

For you'd then be considering the fuller exent of society's daily shaping of a persons worldview - and not just the influence exerted in those times when the "The God Question" might more formally arise. It's that ever-present, 24/7 society, the one which so clearly values career, position & appearance and suggests (overtly and covertly) that the pursuit of self: through wealth/health/happiness is the meaning of life that I'm considering as the influence that needs countering.


Your vision of neutrality doesn't appear to take that into account. It ignores the influential elephant at the table.

I'm still not following. Why is the parent not the overriding influence?

You seem to be worried that if the child's parents don't indoctrinate him quickly into Christianity he will be indoctrinated into say Islam by Muslim media, or a wishy washy version of Christianity by, well I'm not sure?

The above might clarify?

The influences that will arrive at the child from society won't come labelled "Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Athiest worldview - you decide" presented in the R.E. class. No, they'll come in far more easily digestible and subtley coercive form than that. In the current climate, the flavour-in-da-hood is distinctly weighed in favour of the worldy & irreligious. Applied-atheism if you like

Of course I wouldn't leave a child with so hopelessly skewed a balance. Not when they would be considered by me as lost-by-default. And especially not when I see all these supposedly competing non-Christian worldviews as having a common ancestor who is in anything but competition with himself.

Festus

optogirl wrote: »

Well you've just negated all your arguments by getting into petty mud-slinging.

You're quite right. I should have said "Maybe come back when you've moved on from your hypothetical sex life and have some practical experience with children of your own then this can be discussed further."

p.s. if the "mud-slinging", though I prefer the term "robust banter", bothers you stop reading me at post #204

Festus

Retracted in hindsight

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was attempting to avoid the narrow focus suggested in the labelling above, to step away from the limited field of religion/atheism. But if, for example, by "fake Christian" you mean someone who had water poured over their head at birth and hasn't given God/ morality/meaning-of-life questions a moments thought since, then we're getting somewhere. And if by "atheist" you mean someone who for want of ever considering the issue of God happens to be without (a) belief in God (theism) - even if they've never wondered enough to categorise themselves so - then even better.

There seems a perception on this forum some times that we live in an atheist society, which I assure you speaking as an atheist is far from the truth. Just trying to clarify if that is what you meant or a more general non-Christian concept. I think your response clears that up.

antiskeptic wrote: »

For you'd then be considering the fuller exent of society's daily shaping of a persons worldview - and not just the influence exerted in those times when the "The God Question" might more formally arise. It's that ever-present, 24/7 society, the one which so clearly values career, position & appearance and suggests (overtly and covertly) that the pursuit of self: through wealth/health/happiness is the meaning of life that I'm considering as the influence that needs countering.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but are you suggesting that parents should teach their children not to be concerned about their wealth, health or happiness?

If so I think that is a little short sighted, considering the massive problem we have with debt, obesity and depression in this country.

While you may think it is better to focus on establishing a Christian relationship with God at the expense of these things I think it is better to create a healthy happy and financially responsible offspring who can then explore spirituality rather than create a Christian child who forsakes their healthy, happiness and finances in order to find God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your vision of neutrality doesn't appear to take that into account. It ignores the influential elephant at the table.

It isn't ignoring out side influences, as I said. You seem to be confusing neutrality with no influence at all. I'm not suggesting parents throw their children out into the wild and let billboards and McDonald's staff raise them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The influences that will arrive at the child from society won't come labelled "Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Athiest worldview - you decide" presented in the R.E. class. No, they'll come in far more easily digestible and subtley coercive form than that. In the current climate, the flavour-in-da-hood is distinctly weighed in favour of the worldy & irreligious. Applied-atheism if you like

But you are not explaining how this overrides the parent's influence?

Are you saying that not indoctrinating Christianity is the equivilant of doing absolutely nothing and leaving the child at the mercy of the advertisers and the toy companies?

I would disagree with that. Again not making your child Christian is not the same as doing nothing. There is no reason why a parent cannot explore any of what you are talking about with their child.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course I wouldn't leave a child with so hopelessly skewed a balance. Not when they would be considered by me as lost-by-default.

Far better to skew their balance yourself

Again I agree with you, I wouldn't leave a child at the mercy of advertising and Corn Flake promotions. But that isn't what I'm suggesting.

If the only alternative you see to not indoctrinating your child to Christianity is to leave them at the mercy of external influences such as advertising who do not have his interests at heart then I can understand why you think this would be a necessary thing to do, but I would also suggest you have a very narrow notion of what you can do with a child.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

There seems a perception on this forum some times that we live in an atheist society, which I assure you speaking as an atheist is far from the truth. Just trying to clarify if that is what you meant or a more general non-Christian concept. I think your response clears that up.

I'm not suggesting we live in an atheist society. I do suggest we live in a godless one in the sense that God-awareness doesn't figure much in the motivations and machinations of society whatever the labels people might attach to themselves.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but are you suggesting that parents should teach their children not to be concerned about their wealth, health or happiness?

If so I think that is a little short sighted, considering the massive problem we have with debt, obesity and depression in this country.

While you may think it is better to focus on establishing a Christian relationship with God at the expense of these things I think it is better to create a healthy happy and financially responsible offspring who can then explore spirituality rather than create a Christian child who forsakes their healthy, happiness and finances in order to find God.

There is judgement (discernment) and judgement (judgementalism). God approves of the former and not of the latter. There is health, wealth and happiness. And there is making a god of these. God approves of the former and not of the latter. My suggestion was that Irish society has caught up with so much of the West and made a god of godless personal fulfillment (and is bearing the cost of so worshipping at this time).

It isn't ignoring out side influences, as I said. You seem to be confusing neutrality with no influence at all. I'm not suggesting parents throw their children out into the wild and let billboards and McDonald's staff raise them.


But you are not explaining how this overrides the parent's influence?

Are you saying that not indoctrinating Christianity is the equivilant of doing absolutely nothing and leaving the child at the mercy of the advertisers and the toy companies?

I would disagree with that. Again not making your child Christian is not the same as doing nothing. There is no reason why a parent cannot explore any of what you are talking about with their child.



Far better to skew their balance yourself

Again I agree with you, I wouldn't leave a child at the mercy of advertising and Corn Flake promotions. But that isn't what I'm suggesting.

If the only alternative you see to not indoctrinating your child to Christianity is to leave them at the mercy of external influences such as advertising who do not have his interests at heart then I can understand why you think this would be a necessary thing to do, but I would also suggest you have a very narrow notion of what you can do with a child.

The following might help correctly align the discussion between us.


You, Wicknight, would see the world as consisting of any number of mutually exclusive worldviews and would see it (reasonably, given your perspective) as fair that your child be exposed (in so far as reasonably practical and representitive) to the range of worldviews so that your child can make up it's own mind.

I, antiskeptic, would see the world as consisting of only two mutually exclusive worldviews (God and godless-of-whatever-hue) and would see it as fair that my child be exposed to those two worldviews so that they can make their own mind up.

Since the child is going to be exposed to the godless worldview at every turn (whether other religions or irreligion) I would see it as only fair that I act to balance things by using the influence I have in direct countering.

Additionally, you, Wicknight, would see the parental influence brought to bear in the realm of religion as on a par with eg: the influence that might be brought to bear to direct the child into a particular choice of career.

I, antiskeptic, would see the child as dead to God by default and tending towards a godless life in a way that isn't affected by parental influence in the same way a career path might be.

Your argument seems to be predicated on me sharing your view of parental influence across all realms. I don't. Does that alter things for you?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is judgement (discernment) and judgement (judgementalism). God approves of the former and not of the latter. There is health, wealth and happiness. And there is making a god of these. God approves of the former and not of the latter. My suggestion was that Irish society has caught up with so much of the West and made a god of godless personal fulfillment (and is bearing the cost of so worshipping at this time).

But isn't that part of what choosing Christianity is about, rejecting that because you decide the Christian way is better and/or true?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

But isn't that part of what choosing Christianity is about, rejecting that because you decide the Christian way is better and/or true?

Indeed. My points being that;

a) the surrounding influences (whether religious or irreligious) are overwhelmingly godless and requiring of a counterweight - a Christian upbringing being that counterweight. I'm not supposing a persons shifting from an atheist viewpoint to a Hindi viewpoint as a shift on their part at all.

b) the influence of a Christian upbringing shouldn't be conflated with general parental influence just because the parents happen to be the ones doing both kinds of influencing. I'm not in anyway expecting you to see or accept that there is a difference - I'm merely illustrating my perspective to be different than yours.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. My points being that;

a) the surrounding influences (whether religious or irreligious) are overwhelmingly godless and requiring of a counterweight - a Christian upbringing being that counterweight.

No, exposure to Christianity would be a counterweight, creating a neural level allowing choice. Just as exposure to Islam would be a counterweight to Christianity, again allowing the option to choose Islam.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not supposing a child shifting from an atheist viewpoint to a Hindu viewpoint as a shift on their part at all.

I know, but that is because you are concerned with your child being a Christian, not concerned with your child choosing to be a Christian. Those two things are different issues.

So in reality it is not about neutralizing influences to level the playing field but simply replacing one overwhelming influence with another because you think it is the correct one.

Which gets us back to square one.

antiskeptic wrote: »

b) the influence of a Christian upbringing shouldn't be conflated with general parental influence just because the parents happen to be the ones doing both kinds of influencing. I'm not in anyway expecting you to see or accept that there is a difference - I'm merely illustrating my perspective to be different than yours.

I gathered that much

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

No, exposure to Christianity would be a counterweight, creating a neural level allowing choice. Just as exposure to Islam would be a counterweight to Christianity, again allowing the option to choose Islam.

.. and an exposure to atheism allowing an option to choose atheism etc. I get you.

But since I consider both Islam and atheism and the rest to be from satan I've got unbalance

2 units of satan (option Islam + option atheism) vs. 1 unit of christian.

I know, but that is because you are concerned with your child being a Christian, not concerned with your child choosing to be a Christian.

I've told you how I view the options and repeated by outlining the problem above. It's not required that you believe this to be the case in order that I be considered as providing choice from my perspective.

I gathered that much

It would seem that the perception of provision of choice to one's child depends on how one views the options. And so to stalemate.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

.. and an exposure to atheism allowing an option to choose atheism.

Yes.

Part of giving your children a chance to choose their own identity as they get older, including their own religion, is that they actually have to have a choice

I don't want my kid to become a Christian. I really don't like Christianity, I think it is immoral. But I also think it is important that my children understand that themselves. If they don't, and choose Christianity or Islam then I will be disappointed but it is their choice. It is more wrong of me to choose that for them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But since I consider both Islam and atheism to be from satan I've got unbalance

No you don't since Islam and atheism themselves contradict each other. It is not Christianity on one side any everything else on the other. That is your position because you have already chosen Christianity, it is not the position of someone neutral.

I could say all religions are wrong so it is atheism vs every other religion. But that would be inaccurate. Islam is very different to Christianity which itself is very different to Hinduism.

The atheism vs everything else is how I view the world because I'm an atheist. It is not though the position my children would be starting from because they (I hope) will be evaluating religion from a neutral position.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've told you how I view the options and repeated by outlining the problem above.

Again your problem above is a problem of your child being a Christian, not your child choosing Christianity.

Part of giving your child free choice is that they choose something you don't like. The fact that there are a lot of options you don't like and only one you do is immaterial to the choice your child will have.

Your child doesn't have more or less choice simply because you don't like the options. You could say I want my child to be a doctor and anything else they choose will be a terrible career choice and a disappointment to me. That doesn't reflect your child's options for a career.

In that analogy it becomes an issue of whether you want them to be a doctor or whether you want them to have as many career options as possible so they can choose the one that believe is best. These are too quite different things.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would seem that the perception of provision of choice to one's child depends on how one views the options. And so to stalemate.

Not if you are interested in your child having choice, rather than concerned solely with your child picking the "right" choice (ie the one you picked for them)

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

No you don't since Islam and atheism themselves contradict each other.

In the way that matters to both satan and God they don't.

(perspective #1 - see later, so perhaps leave responding at this point)

It is not Christianity on one side any everything else on the other. That is your position because you have already chosen Christianity, it is not the position of someone neutral.

I said later on in my last post than this would very much depend on perspectives. From my perspective, where there are but two apparent options I am being neutral. Christianity vs. what satan has to offer. From your perspective, where there are a multitude of differing options, I am not being neutral.

(perspective #2 - again perhaps delay responding?)

The atheism vs everything else is how I view the world because I'm an atheist. It is not though the position my children would be starting from because they (I hope) will be evaluating religion from a neutral position.

You expose your child to all the options because you see them as different options in so far as they have mutual exclusivity. Fairness demands that genuinely different options get equal bite of the cherry. If you really saw Islam and Christianity as the same thing in effect then you would offer sufficient by exposing them to both atheism and Christianity.


When you don't perceive them as genuinely different options you get a...

5 (atheism + hinduism + Islam + Buddhism + Nee Ageism) vs. 1 Christianity situation.


...situation.



(perspective #3)

Again your problem above is a problem of your child being a Christian, not your child choosing Christianity.

Part of giving your child free choice is that they choose something you don't like. The fact that there are a lot of options you don't like and only one you do is immaterial to the choice your child will have.

My child can choose something I don't like. They can choose against God.

The question is whether my teaching them Christianity only (from the list of formal worldview options) consistutes an overly significant push in a Christian direction. I would hold that the influences ranged against Christianity (bearing in mind I view the opposing views as having a single source) would ensure the balance is against me.

(perspective #4)


_________


Perspective 1, 2 and 3 involve the same issue: you percieve a multitude of differing options when faced with all the worldviews, I perceive all the non-Christians variants as having the same source and being thus, the same option.

Perspective 4 is related. It concerns the seeming over-influence of my teaching only Christianity to my child - but that view is predicated on your perspective re: 1, 2 and 3 being correct. If my perspective is correct then I'm fighting against the whole world to achieve a semblence of balance for my child.


Bar for simply asserting (in so many words) your perspective correct in these two areas (1-3 and 4), how do we advance?

optogirl

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the way that matters to both satan and God they don't.

oh yeah? what else were they telling ya?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the way that matters to both satan and God they don't.

That is irrelevant to your child having choice.

You can believe there is a wrong choice while still allowing your child to make it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I said later on in my last post than this would very much depend on perspectives. From my perspective where there are but two apparent options I am being neutral. Christianity vs. what satan has to offer.

That is not being neutral. It is saying all non-Christian choices are the same. That maybe true for you but it isn't true for your child until they decide it is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

From yours, where there are a multitude of differing options, I am not being neutral.

From my perspective there are two choices, atheism or a false religion. But again that isn't relevant.

Our perspectives aren't the issue. The child's perspective is the issue. From someone who has not picked a religion yet Christianity is not the same as Islam which isn't the same as Scientology.

The idea that you must counter all non-Christian religions with Christianity is therefore inaccurate because from the perspective of your child all non-Christian religions are not saying the same thing.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I appreciate you're being fair. You expose your child to all the options because you see them as different options in their mutual exclusivity. Fairness demands that genuinely different options get equal bite of the cherry.

But when you don't perceive them as genuinely different options you get a

5 (atheism + hinduism + Islam + Buddhism + Nee Ageism) vs. 1 Christianity situation.

That is irrelevant. For a start I see it as

Chrisitanity + Islam + Buddhism + ... + Scientology (all false) vs Atheism (true)

I'm not any different to you, I have a notion in my mind as to what is true and what isn't. To me it is even worse than you since you probably think some religion is better than none where I would feel the opposite. You might be happy with your kid being a strict Muslim because at least they ain't worshiping money and having lots of pre-marriage sex. But to me any religion would be a challenge for me as a parent.

But that isn't relevant because that isn't how a person who hasn't chosen a position would see it. That comes after picking a religion, and your child hasn't done that yet.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question is whether my teaching them Christianity only (from the list of formal worldview options) consistutes an overly significant push in a Christian direction. I would hold that the influences ranged against Christianity (bearing in mind I view the opposing views as having a single source) would ensure the balance is against me.

You would be wrong

Statistic show the overwhelming influence parental religion has over what religion a person remains in. Raise them Christian they are very likely to be Christian, raise them Muslim they are very likely to be Muslim, raise them Scientology they are very likely to be Scientology.

This to me is not giving your children a fair chance to choose their own religion based on a rational understanding of the religion, rather than because your parents raised you in it.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

That is irrelevant to your child having choice.

You can believe there is a wrong choice while still allowing your child to make it.

My child will have choice. God or no God

That is not being neutral. It is saying all non-Christian choices are the same. That maybe true for you but it isn't true for your child until they decide it is...

Your saying that atheism and Islam are different. That may be true for you. If it isn't you will have provided imbalance...

You've done nothing here but counter my perspective with your's. That leads to stalemate.

From my perspective there are two choices, atheism or a false religion. But again that isn't relevant.

Our perspectives aren't the issue. The child's perspective is the issue. From someone who has not picked a religion yet Christianity is not the same as Islam which isn't the same as Scientology.

The idea that you must counter all non-Christian religions with Christianity is therefore inaccurate because from the perspective of your child all non-Christian religions are not saying the same thing.

On the matter central to all religions, all non-Christian religions are saying the same thing: your standing before the god in question is dependent on what you do. I won't go into the means by which non-Christian religions tie in with paganism and atheism here. Suffice for now to point to both the prodigal son (as modelling the irreligious) and the stay-at-home obedient son (the works-based religionist) as being equally lost in the eyes of the father.

Let's not conflate a sweets wrapping (which do differ wildly) and the fact that they all rot your teeth.

That is irrelevant. For a start I see it as

Chrisitanity + Islam + Buddhism + ... + Scientology (all false) vs Atheism (true)

It's not the falsity that matters, it's whether they have something tangibly different to offer or not. If you think they have something different to offer then they should all have a seat at the table. If you think they are shades of the same thing in essence then you should take off the sweet wrapping and ensure its the contents that are offered in balanced fashion.

5 bags of the religious sweet isn't a fair balance to 1 bag of atheist sweet. It's your duty to analyse whats on offer to ensure it's fair in essence - not wrapping.

You might be happy with your kid being a strict Muslim because at least they ain't worshiping money and having lots of pre-marriage sex. But to me any religion would be a challenge for me as a parent.

I'd see religion as more dangerous than hedonism. Jesus came to save sinners - not those who suppose themselves saints.

Statistics show the overwhelming influence parental religion has over what religion a person remains in. Raise them Christian they are very likely to be Christian, raise them Muslim they are very likely to be Muslim, raise them Scientology they are very likely to be Scientology.

This to me is not giving your children a fair chance to choose their own religion based on a rational understanding of the religion, rather than because your parents raised you in it.

I appreciate your point and would suppose the 90% or so who ticked the Catholic box in the last census did so because the major influences in their lives were Catholic. But statistics don't say anything about Christianity - for want of:

a) examining it under the temporary assumption that could be true and so potentially other than hand-me-down religions.

b) if true, figuring out how to tell whether someone is a Christian or not


My own experience in church is that the kids disappear from it just about as soon as they are able to. A few stay and a few come back some years later. Most don't/

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't want my kid to become a Christian. I really don't like Christianity, I think it is immoral.

So that's why you've been beating this dead donkey for the last week and a half?


You don't want Children to be neutral, get off your high horse and admit you just don't want Children to grow up to be Christians.


Either way, This thread is retarded.
Christians SHOULD raise their children to be Christians because we know that (a) a relationship with God is what is best for them an (b) the bible tells us to do it.

There is no discussion to be had here.