Why is it OK to indoctrinate children?

[rjs330]

WOW. Just wow.

After many days at christianforums.com, finally one post from a Christian that actually makes sense! Your students and church people must be very lucky.

Your reply is honest and shows understanding of yhe simple message of Jesus. Amazing! Why is it so rare to see in churches and in faith?

May I ask you a hard question. Can you even for a second imagine that the Bible is wrong? Not in its entirety, obviously, but in some of its important teachings? In that case, would it be good to influence children to learn and believe it?

That is, do you think it is morally right or good to impose something as truth to children? Is it not a better way perhaps to try and be honest and say, this is what I believe in, but it's okay to think otherwise? If it's possible at all. To try and present knowledge most objectively, in a non-biased way?

Not indoctrination, but rather informing about all versions of explaining life, people, the world - allowing the possibility to chose what to believe in?

That is, giving them a complete freedom in choosing their believes and life path. No imposing. No indoctrination. Objective, balanced, wise, unprejudiced teaching. In complete honesty, openness, fullness of knowledge.

What do you think? Impossible task for a believer?

You say, upbringing should be motivated by love not hate or fear. True.

But what is TRUE love?

And as far as what true love is concerned Jesus is the example in that while we were yet sinners he died for us.

 

[Catherineanne]

If it's in God's word they should know it. I can't hide the Lord from them =(

Actually, you can. Some things, even in Scripture, are suitable for children, some are not.

Discretion is needed.

 

[rjs330]

The Holy Spirit.

I feel,like you completely ignored my post. The bible does not tell their parents to let the Holy Spirit teach their kids. It places the responsibility on the parents. We are just,doing what God tells,us to,do.

While I agree with the general notion that the Holy Spirit is supposed to play some role in the propagation of the Christian tradition as a handful of the things the writers of the New Testament suggests, I would also say that they don't discount that a portion of the role of the Holy Spirit is to be dispensed through the various gifts and agencies of the Church.

Hence, Christian parents, like Jewish parents of old, are a part of God's collective people, and are therefore charged with delivering some portion of God's "info" to the children.

 

[Catherineanne]

May I ask you a hard question. Can you even for a second imagine that the Bible is wrong? Not in its entirety, obviously, but in some of its important teachings? In that case, would it be good to influence children to learn and believe it?

Yes, why not?

We are not (I hope) teaching our children to believe the Bible. We are teaching them to love God, and their neighbours as themselves. The Bible leads us to God, but the Bible itself is not God and ought never to be treated as if it were.

 

[Tallguy88]

Actually, you can. Some things, even in Scripture, are suitable for children, some are not.

Discretion is needed.

That's right. Even St. Paul says to give milk to new believers and save the meat for those who able to digest it.

 

[rjs330]

Actually, you can. Some things, even in Scripture, are suitable for children, some are not.

Discretion is needed.

I do agree with this. Age appropriateness is important. Anything we teach children should be age appropriate. Its the same reason when we rent movies for young children we rent children's movies and not Saw IV.

Descretion is needed.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

But would you teach your child that rain is not wet?
Or that the sky is not blue?
The Bible is true. So teaching a child about the Bible is not wrong. Sure, they are free to not believe. Nobody can force their child to believe. It still comes down to the child having faith; And a child will have to grow up and determine the truth of God's Word for themselves as they are an adult, too.


...

I understand this kind of logic. It's called convictions. They can be religious, political, scientific etc. It's a kind of bias, no matter how strong you believe. Somebody thinks differently from you. That's the thing. The truth is so much larger than a small version of it. No person knows all truth or is free of mistakes.

"Wet rain" is our description of a reality we know first-hand. We describe our experiences. They are true to us in a certain context.

Religion is a different matter. It's subject is a reality we do not know. Therefore, anyone is free to construct their version of it.

Ancient Egyptians had their version of the afterlife, for example. To me, they are all equal because they are equally unprovable.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

Absolutely not. The reason is the child's eternal soul is at stake. It would be foolish to teach a child that it's just fine to believe whatever you want. Because believing in Jesus is the only way to gain eternal life in heaven. If I really believe that then what kind of parent would I,be if I said it's fine to believe what you want.

If you as a parent believed that your child needed to walk on the sidewalk so they don't get run over by a car so you tell them that's what you believe but other people believe differently and they say it's ok to walk on the road so go ahead and choose what you want? Or would you not even want to teach,them that cause if you do you know your child will get run over?

We believe that your soul IS at stake. Jesus said don't fear those who can kill the body but fear the one that can destroy your soul in hell. We really have no real faith or belief if we think it's fine to teach kids other options and believe they are just as viable as what I believe.

Thank you. I totally understand. In a previous post here I said exactly the same.

But then, there are other opinions. Do you allow even a little bit of doubt? If you are wrong, you are committing a grave mistake. At least in some things, not in everything of course. Nobody is wrong or right entirely.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I understand this kind of logic. It's called convictions. They can be religious, political, scientific etc. It's a kind of bias, no matter how strong you believe. Someone thinks differently from you. That's the thing. The truth is so much larger than a small version of it. No person knows all truth or is free of mistakes.

"Wet rain" is our description of a reality we know first-hand. We describe our experiences. They are true to us in a certain context.

Religion is a different matter. It's subject is a reality we do not know. Therefore, anyone is free to construct their version of it.

Ancient Egyptians had their version of the afterlife, first example. To me, they are all equal because they are equally unprovable.

This is simply not true. You would not say that you cannot know Jesus and His Word are true unless you had a relationship with Him. So yes. You need experience. That experience can be found by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ for real according to His Word. It's no different than taking somebody outside the house and showing them by experience how rain is wet.


...

 

[Just_a_Joe]

And as far as what true love is concerned Jesus is the example in that while we were yet sinners he died for us.

I agree. Giving your physical life is the ultimate sacrifice a human being can give on this earth...

Not to argue, but just to say that there can be other opinions about Christ's sacrificial death. For example, there are those who think it was not a real sacrifice because He knew in advance He would be raised from the dead and because He had supernatural abilities to tolerate suffering. Etc. All kinds of other views that, for those who hold them, completly nullify His act on Golgotha.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I agree. Giving your physical life is the ultimate sacrifice a human being can give on this earth...

Not to argue, but just to say that there can be other opinions boutique Christ's sacrificial death. For example, there are those who think it was not a real sacrifice because He knew in advanced He would be raised from the death and because He had supernatural abilities to tolerate suffering. Etc. All kinds of other views that completly nullify His act on Golgotha.

Sorry. False opinions do not nullify the truth from happening.


...

 

[Just_a_Joe]

This is simply not true. You would not say that you cannot know Jesus and His Word are true unless you had a relationship with Him. So yes. You need experience. That experience can be found by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ for real according to His Word. It's no different than taking somebody outside the house and showing them by experience how rain is wet.


...

I understand. But it's your subjective experience. It's true and valid for you, it's your reality. Ancient Egyptians had a different kind of experience, at least they ascribed it a different meaning, understood it in a different way. There are all kinds of people today having their own subjective experiences, explaining them in their own terms.

I also see, as an observer who is trying to be objective, among Christians, that besides from genuine experiences there can often be really self-misleading experiences. For example, when they talk about the power of prayer. The most confusing concept. Sounds like outright mistake. Occasional coincidence, at best.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

Sorry. False opinions do not nullify the truth from happening.

False to you, true to somebody else. I personally do not support any of the views, Christian or not. They are all equal to me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Can you say that rain being not wet may not be true?
If one has experienced rain as being wet, then they know it is true.
Just as if one experienced Jesus (By accepting Him), they will know He is true.
Knowing Jesus is not subjective to the individual.
No other religion offers anything like this.
A true and genuine relationship with the Creator is very real.
But you have to experience it.
Just as a new born baby one day needs to grow up and learn about how rain is wet.


...

 

[Just_a_Joe]

Can you say that rain being not wet may not be true?
If one has experienced rain as being wet, then they know it is true.
Just as if one experienced Jesus (By accepting Him), they will know He is true.
Knowing Jesus is not subjective to the individual.
No other religion offers anything like this.
A true and genuine relationship with the Creator is very real.
But you have to experience it.
Just as a new born baby one day needs to grow up and learn about how rain is wet.

Even a newborn experiences rain whether they want it or not. So does every person on earth in cognitively active state. Objective.

Religion is mostly subjective, meaning, other people may not experience the same or similar thing.

Religious experience is dependant on your learning certain ideas (indoctrination). If you do not learn those ideas, or you learn a different set of ideas, then you either don't have those experiences or your experiences differ or you express them in a different terminology.

Your religious experiences are true to you. They might be true, false, non-existant, or seemingly very different to others - depending on the ideas they hold as true.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Rain being wet is objective...
A "relationship" with Jesus is subjective.

Rain being wet is not open for interpretation. It is wet. Water is wet.
A "relationship" with Jesus is open for interpretation. Some people claim they have this, others do not. Therefore it's a subjective experience.

Definition of objective for Students. 1 : dealing with facts without allowing personal feelings to confuse them <an objective report> 2 : being or belonging to the case of a noun or pronoun that is an object of a transitive verb or a preposition. 3 : being outside of the mind and independent of it.
subjective

[suh b-jek-tiv]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6.
pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

 

[dzheremi]

Religious experience is dependant on your learning certain ideas (indoctrination). If you do not learn those ideas, or you learn a different set of ideas, then you either don't have those experiences or your experiences differ.

They are true to you. They are false or simply non-existant to others.

I don't know that this is the case. If religious experience were all about learning certain ideas, then it would be enough to simply study them out of a book with no direct experience of their application or 'what they mean' (in a broad sense). I can name the five pillars of Islam, but that is not the same as going to a mosque. It seems pretty fundamental that learning about something and experiencing that thing are not the same.

And simply knowing or learning about ideas says nothing about their truth either way, so the bit about things being true for you and false for others cannot be dependent upon the degree to which the person judging them knows about them. Certainly there are many atheists who have studied the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, etc. and still remain atheists, and likewise many Christians, Muslims, and Jews who probably don't know their scriptures as well as they'd like to think they do and yet remain convinced that they are true.

It's a problem of epistemology that is not solved by the accumulation of knowledge. If you ever want to make the claim that anything is true, eventually you have to put the books down and pick a street, whether that means rejecting all of them, or all but one, or whatever. And that still likely won't say anything about their truth so much as what you are personally persuaded by. But are things 'true' or 'false' because we think they are? Not if we're talking about objective truth.

This is why I think it is better to say that there is no objective truth behind religion(s) -- at least not objective in the sense of being something that everyone can agree on, like water being wet (I don't think objective actually means 'universally agreed upon', but that's another discussion). There is only the lived experience of given communities that testify to what they have believed based on those experiences for X number of years/centuries. Religion is experiential in this way, not based on a secular idea of objective truth. The claims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah, or that Muhammad is the messenger of God, or that God chose Israel as His people are some of the least objective things I can imagine. Hence the atheist or agnostic who cannot believe in anything unless they are shown objective proof of its veracity will continue to not believe in religion, while the religious person is wise to not wait around for such proof that they should know will never materialize. It is only because of the pervasiveness of the modern secular mindset in today's world that objective proof is prized as being more valuable or trustworthy than experience, though, and since religious people by definition don't share that mindset (though plenty have been influenced by it; cf. the modern atheist who nevertheless lives in a formerly religious society will nonetheless often show some interest in religion as a sociological object...hence threads like this one), that doesn't really come into play for the people you are trying to talk to/about.

Hence we will forever talk past each other because to each of us the people on the other side don't know what truth is (you think it's objective facts like water being wet while the religious think it is shared and mutually confirmed experiences), so talking about what is true and what is false and why is ultimately useless.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I feel,like you completely ignored my post. The bible does not tell their parents to let the Holy Spirit teach their kids. It places the responsibility on the parents. We are just,doing what God tells,us to,do.

I didn't ignore your post. I thanked you for it. However, I find none of it applicable.

See, when I bring up something like, "Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow Jesus" I'm promptly told that the statement was meant only for the rich young ruler. Therefore, I understand Deuteronomy to be only for the pre-Messianic Jews. I understand the epistles addressed to Timothy to be for Timothy. I understand the epistle to the Ephesians to be for... well, you get the point.

So I need you to either:

1.) Sell all that you have and give to the poor, and then cite any passage you like.

2.) Give me original arguments that come from you.

3.) Flesh out that treatise on morality we discussed so I know why you're allowed to cherry pick the Bible.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

See, when I bring up something like, "Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow Jesus" I'm promptly told that the statement was meant only for the rich young ruler.

I did this 42 years ago, and told everybody who would listen, and many(most) who do not or cannot listen, that Y'SHUA TOLD ALL THE DISCIPLES TO DO THIS - THAT THEY EACH AND EVERY ONE MUST GIVE UP EVERYTHING TO BE Y'SHUA'S DISCIPLE. HE DID NOT MAKE ANY EXCEPTION.
The disciples in Scripture - when Y'SHUA TOLD THIS TO THEM, were FLABBERGASTED shocked and dismayed
and CRIED "HOW THEN CAN ANYBODY (including Peter, John, James) BE SAVED?!"
and
Y'SHUA told them "YOU CAN'T BE .... ...." to be cont...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Or, one could do what I do, which is to tell my child that my entire book collection is open to them for investigation (which covers quite a diverse number of non-Christian subjects, being the Philosophy student that I am), and still, on a regular basis, I then sit down with my family to read a more robust translation of the Bible, and I, as a father and husband, give it my best academic explanation. Would you count that as indoctrination, NV?

The determining factor on whether a teaching method can be thought of as indoctrination is simply how you handle their questions and doubts.

Parents who indoctrinate their children stifle questions. This can be done in many ways: through abuse (physical or otherwise), or simply by saying that such a question is not proper to ask. Basically, anything to avoid answering the question.

On a lower level, which is I suppose on the fringe and may or may not be considered indoctrination, is when parents give a dishonest answer where they twist the facts or outright lie.

My situation is quite different than normal indoctrination because I lost my faith almost right when I became a legal adult. I can't recall, off the top of my head, how my parents handled questions from me when I was a believer.

I talked with my parents a lot during my exploratory phase as a brand new atheist and they took their own angle: they didn't lie, but they gave very poor, dissatisfying answers that almost always raised even more questions. When I pursued the line of reasoning, they would then shut me down and say something like, "We answered your question. All you want to do is argue." I still do discuss religion with them, although they generally don't want to discuss it back and I have to kind of wrestle it out of them. Normally it would be wrong to coerce people into discussing religion when they don't want to, but I consider my parents to be a special exception since they are the ones who put all these ideas into my head in the first place.

So to answer your question, 2PV (and I do like to answer questions, seeing as how I'm against indoctrination ), I need to ask a question back at you: how do you handle their questions? If your children were to hurl one of the many cripplers of Christianity at you, how would you respond?