Why is it OK to indoctrinate children?

[Nihilist Virus]

We both know that isn't true; liberalism, the liberalisation of social rules, is an ideology in itself into which liberal parents indoctrinate their children.

We are getting off topic to the point that I don't care if you're right about anything you have said. Do you have anything to say about the actual topic?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm fairly liberal myself and lately the above is simply not true.

Do you have anything to say about the actual topic?

 

[Inkfingers]

We are getting off topic to the point that I don't care if you're right about anything you have said. Do you have anything to say about the actual topic?

You said, in your OP, please explain why indoctrination is acceptable.

I have done that by saying "It is a normal part of parenting to raise your children with the values you believe to be correct. Hence even liberal parents indoctrinate their children (with liberalism)". This clearly says that indoctrination is a normal practice in parenting, even amongst Liberals, and thus that indoctrination in itself is not unaccepable (but that it is the content of the indoctrination that we call acceptable or unacceptable).

 

[LordDuncanBurneWilke]

Do you have anything to say about the actual topic?

Not really.

 

[Sistrin]

Let me start by saying that I've never, not even once, seen the indoctrination of children explained to be a bad thing by any Christian.

You seem to believe there is something nefarious attached to Christian parents raising their children in the Christian church. I notice you do not extend that condemnation to Muslim parents raising their children according to the tenets of Islam, or satanist parents raising their children according to the tenets of satanism. Only Christians fall within the confines of your ludicrous and inane assertion.

I've never seen one Christian rebuke another for the practice.

What is there to rebuke?

Therefore I will assume, until told otherwise, that all Christians are of the persuasion that indoctrination of children is acceptable. I am curious as to why this is found to be acceptable.

This is actually hard for you? The truth of this thread is you are intentionally being disingenuous, and in doing so are serving to prove a point made by myself and others here over time. Atheist focus their hatred and ire not against religion and those who practice it, but against Christianity. For you to single out Christian parents and accuse them of indoctrinating their children clearly illustrates your infantile bias.

Predictably followed up with:

Christianity, supposing it is true, will withstand the furious scrutiny of any academic nonbeliever, so there is no threat of extinction looming over it.

The assertion you as an atheist and therefore atheist in general are just so much smarter than all of us stupid God people. The furious scrutiny of any academic nonbeliever. Could you be any more mechanical?

I understand that paternal instinct implores one to protect one's children, and in this case the parent is protecting the child from eternal hellfire, but indoctrination is only successful if it stamps out the freedom of choice in the child.

If you actually believe this nonsense then you should be foaming at the mouth in regard to such issues as Common Core and the advancement of the liberal/progressive agenda. Public schools cranking out barely literate morons unable to effectively question the dictates of career establishment politicians reflects the true indoctrination occurring in our society. Christianity, of which you obviously know nothing, does not restrict or eliminate freedom of choice. Christianity teaches the responsibility inherent in freedom of choice.

But even the Calvanists must admit that indoctrination is pointless since indoctrination of a child who is not chosen by God...

Not chosen by God? Your underlying assertion is supported by such flawed reasoning and vacuous claims as to, again, reveal your true agenda.

Liberalism is more associated with critical thinking skills, the opposite of indoctrination.

Liberalism not only demands but is completely dependent on feckless and programmed compliance with the stated norm. Those who chose to employ critical thinking skills tend to become Conservatives.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You said, in your OP, please explain why indoctrination is acceptable.

I have done that by saying "It is a normal part of parenting to raise your children with the values you believe to be correct. Hence even liberal parents indoctrinate their children (with liberalism)". This clearly says that indoctrination is a normal practice in parenting, even amongst Liberals, and thus that indoctrination in itself is not unaccepable (but that it is the content of the indoctrination that we call acceptable or unacceptable).

You have thus far made no contributions to the topic. The fact that something occurs with great frequency does not mean it is acceptable. That is utterly absurd. On judgment day, will God say, "You were a devout Muslim, refusing the gospel every time it was presented to you, but that was normal for someone in Iraq so I find it to be acceptable"? Abortion and pornography are normal and legal in America, so shall I assume that you look favorably upon those things?

But you're right about one thing. Your baffling response was the most focused on the topic over all others thus far. I take this as an admission that my questions have no Christian-friendly answer.

 

[Inkfingers]

You have thus far made no contributions to the topic. The fact that something occurs with great frequency does not mean it is acceptable. That is utterly absurd. On judgment day, will God say, "You were a devout Muslim, refusing the gospel every time it was presented to you, but that was normal for someone in Iraq so I find it to be acceptable"? Abortion and pornography are normal and legal in America, so shall I assume that you look favorably upon those things?

But you're right about one thing. Your baffling response was the most focused on the topic over all others thus far. I take this as an admission that my questions have no Christian-friendly answer.

Why would you take that?

There is nothing unChristian about raising your children with your values. Indeed, every parent raises their children with their values. That's part of parenting.

The problem is not the indoctrinatION, its what is or is not indoctrinatED. <= and this is where I answer (several times now) your question in your OP.

Cheerio.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let me start by saying that I've never, not even once, seen the indoctrination of children explained to be a bad thing by any Christian. I've never seen one Christian rebuke another for the practice. In fact I don't even know if I've ever even seen a Christian even address this issue at all, apart from perhaps 1.) when a Christian is questioned on it by an atheist, or 2.) when a Christian remarks that someone is not raising their children properly (seeming to indicate a pro-indoctrination stance).

Therefore I will assume, until told otherwise, that all Christians are of the persuasion that indoctrination of children is acceptable. I am curious as to why this is found to be acceptable.

I also am curious as to why this practice is necessary, since, if we suppose that Christianity is the one true religion, there should be no dire need to perpetuate the religion by means of indoctrinating young minds. Christianity, supposing it is true, will withstand the furious scrutiny of any academic nonbeliever, so there is no threat of extinction looming over it. Furthermore, indoctrination should be unnecessary simply because either 1.) apologetics suffices to convince any rational person, or 2.) the Holy Spirit will reach out to everyone, or at least to those who are called, and since this comes from God it will be more effective than human means (indoctrination, apologetics, etc).

I understand that paternal instinct implores one to protect one's children, and in this case the parent is protecting the child from eternal hellfire, but indoctrination is only successful if it stamps out the freedom of choice in the child. This, to me, seems to be a way of telling God that he is doing it wrong because, apart from Calvanists, free will is more or less a staple doctrine. But even the Calvanists must admit that indoctrination is pointless since indoctrination of a child who is not chosen by God will not result in the child being saved whereas failure to indoctrinate a chosen child will do no harm to the child's salvation.

So in summary, please explain why indoctrination is acceptable, why it is necessary, and what the overall motivation/thought process underlying indoctrination is.

Hi NV,

I don't intend on getting into an elongated and elaborate discussion or exploration on this topic, so I'll just briefly say that in my own estimation, I think we can first distinguish between the general concept of Christian Education as opposed to sheer indoctrination. Sure, I think it's likely that some number of Christian parents may operate within a praxis that equates to indoctrination, but this doesn't have to be the case.

As far as to why Christian parents would be proactive in asserting Christian education in the home comes, I think in a somewhat simple way, from the fact that the O.T. pattern for Jewish society and faith was predicated on just this notion of religiously inclined education. We see this in Genesis 18:19 as a precursor to the Deuteronomic Law expressed in the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4-9. For a fuller approach to the why and wherefores of "Christian Education," see Findley B Edge's book (1993), A History of Christian Education. For a fuller evaluation of how Christians might view the nature and use of "religious" education, even as it may apply in the home for one's children of various ages, perhaps look at:

Foundational Issues in Christian Education - Robert W. Pazmino

Have a good day, NV!

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[dzheremi]

Christian parents raise their children to be Christians, Muslim parents raise their children to be Muslims, atheist parents raise their children to be atheists, etc., and in every case, the child is the one who eventually makes the decision to either stay in the belief system or leave. I have many friends who were raised in various Christian churches for whom "it didn't take" (to paraphrase my father concerning his own upbringing; like many people, he is probably best described as an opportunistic agnostic, though he was raised Catholic by a mother who herself eventually stopped practicing), and a smaller number of Jewish and Muslim friends who have said the same thing about their own religious upbringings. Some of them are now Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. I myself was not raised in the Coptic Orthodox Church, but came to it out of Roman Catholicism, and before that a long period of agnosticism following the death of my mother, who was herself a kind of omni-denominational Protestant (having raised my brother and I in the Presbyterian Church, by the end of her life she had been attending a Baptist church for several years).

So there are all kinds of moves that are possible, and I think which you say are 'indoctrination' says a lot more about you than about the people or even the particular changes you are talking about. I wasn't indoctrinated by Egyptian people to join their Church (in fact, before I attended my first Coptic liturgy five years ago, I had never met or spoken to an Egyptian person) any more so than I had earlier been 'indoctrinated' to be a Presbyterian, though I will freely admit that only one of these two examples was entirely voluntary, since I had no choice as a child but to attend the church that my mother had picked out for us.

I take it that is what the OP is on about: "forcing" religion on your child like that, where they don't have a say in whether or not they sincerely believe or actually developed a desire to participate out of their own selves, rather than familial or community pressure or whatever.

To that I say so what. You don't ask for nor expect the child's assent or permission before you feed them, clothe them, put them to bed, or do any of the other regular, day-to-day parts of being a parent. For religious parents (not just Christians), this list of things also includes raising your children in your faith. It just does. Go ahead and complain about it if you want to (I certainly did as a child, because I didn't like the church we had to go to; the pastor was a shyster, and even 8 year old me knew my time would be better spent sleeping in), but it really is that matter of fact, in the same way that if you want to raise your children with good eating habits, you make a point of feeding them good food. You don't expect them to try all foods that they personally feel like trying (or no foods, should that be what they prefer) and then come to their own conclusion about what's good and what isn't, because they're kids. Leave them to their own devices, and they'll be having a can of cake frosting for dinner every night because it tastes better than broccoli or whatever. It's your responsibility as a parent to guide them in the way you want them to go. Presumably, no one would call this set up 'indoctrination' in favor of or against certain foods. It's just part of being a parent.

Then later on in life, when you've sent them on their way, if they want to eat garbage every day, that's their choice and they'll live with it. Either way, you will have done what is expected of you as someone who actually cares about their child's welfare.

 

[redleghunter]

That thread does not address the points/questions in this thread. Please remain on topic.

Frankly it does. You posted your inquiry in "Exploring Christianity." This is not a debate forum. So the question at what stage are you in your exploration?

 

[redleghunter]

But you're right about one thing. Your baffling response was the most focused on the topic over all others thus far. I take this as an admission that my questions have no Christian-friendly answer.

Again, this is exploring Christianity and not 'deploring Christianity.'

Christians teach the faith to their children. Such things as:

Love God with all you have.
Love neighbor as yourself

Worship God
Honor mother and father
Don't steal
Don't kill
Don't do adultery
Don't covet
Don't lie.

Stuff like that. Which makes for a good citizenry.

Other than cultic fringe groups or abusive parents I know of no Christian church which forces 'beliefs' on a child or even an adult. It begs the question, based on your line of questioning is this subject quite personal for you? If so, there are wonderful chaplains and angels here at CF who can help. And if this is the case, I will pray for you. Also, if you were raised in a cult, please let us know what the name of the cult is so we can warn others. Thank you.

Some questions:

How would one be able to force another to believe something? "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." Not a parent or guardian making that determination for another. From Kindergarten Sunday school to adult Bible study, the Scriptures present the case for free will from the garden of Eden to the garden of Gethsemane.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You seem to believe there is something nefarious attached to Christian parents raising their children in the Christian church. I notice you do not extend that condemnation to Muslim parents raising their children according to the tenets of Islam, or satanist parents raising their children according to the tenets of satanism. Only Christians fall within the confines of your ludicrous and inane assertion.

I find Islam to be so despicable that I have little to say to Muslims. My conversations with them will never be pleasant. But I'm confused as to why you seem to expect me to ask Muslims about their practices on a Christian forum.

What is there to rebuke?

Again, indoctrination could be interpreted as a sleight against God. You are quoting me line by line and yet you don't seem to understand the point.

This is actually hard for you? The truth of this thread is you are intentionally being disingenuous, and in doing so are serving to prove a point made by myself and others here over time. Atheist focus their hatred and ire not against religion and those who practice it, but against Christianity. For you to single out Christian parents and accuse them of indoctrinating their children clearly illustrates your infantile bias.

None of this addresses any point I've made or question I've asked.

Predictably followed up with:

The assertion you as an atheist and therefore atheist in general are just so much smarter than all of us stupid God people. The furious scrutiny of any academic nonbeliever. Could you be any more mechanical?

I don't see how this is relevant, and furthermore I fail to see how the inference follows.

If you actually believe this nonsense then you should be foaming at the mouth in regard to such issues as Common Core and the advancement of the liberal/progressive agenda. Public schools cranking out barely literate morons unable to effectively question the dictates of career establishment politicians reflects the true indoctrination occurring in our society. Christianity, of which you obviously know nothing, does not restrict or eliminate freedom of choice. Christianity teaches the responsibility inherent in freedom of choice.

Your claim that I know nothing about Christianity is false and irrelevant. The bulk of what you've said thus far is inflammatory, irrelevant and nonsensical. I don't understand why you say, "If you actually believe this nonsense then you should be foaming at the mouth in regard to [certain bad ideas]." It seems that you look favorably upon Christian indoctrination, disfavorably upon certain methods of education, and then you go on to suggest that the two are essentially the same thing.

Not chosen by God? Your underlying assertion is supported by such flawed reasoning and vacuous claims as to, again, reveal your true agenda.

What?

Liberalism not only demands but is completely dependent on feckless and programmed compliance with the stated norm. Those who chose to employ critical thinking skills tend to become Conservatives.

I fail to see how this is relevant. I fail to see how you've contributed anything of value. If the inflammatory nonsense continues, we're through. If you're nonsensical, you must be polite. If you're inflammatory, you must have a good argument. What you've typed out is simply internet pollution.

 

[redleghunter]

I find Islam to be so despicable that I have little to say to Muslims. My conversations with them will never be pleasant. But I'm confused as to why you seem to expect me to ask Muslims about their practices on a Christian forum.



Again, indoctrination could be interpreted as a sleight against God. You are quoting me line by line and yet you don't seem to understand the point.



None of this addresses any point I've made or question I've asked.



I don't see how this is relevant, and furthermore I fail to see how the inference follows.



Your claim that I know nothing about Christianity is false and irrelevant. The bulk of what you've said thus far is inflammatory, irrelevant and nonsensical. I don't understand why you say, "If you actually believe this nonsense then you should be foaming at the mouth in regard to [certain bad ideas]." It seems that you look favorably upon Christian indoctrination, disfavorably upon certain methods of education, and then you go on to suggest that the two are essentially the same thing.



What?



I fail to see how this is relevant. I fail to see how you've contributed anything of value. If the inflammatory nonsense continues, we're through. If you're nonsensical, you must be polite. If you're inflammatory, you must have a good argument. What you've typed out is simply internet pollution.

Everything @Sistrin posted was in response to your OP. Are they not your words? Therefore, quite relevant.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I find Islam to be so despicable that I have little to say to Muslims. My conversations with them will never be pleasant. But I'm confused as to why you seem to expect me to ask Muslims about their practices on a Christian forum.

Again, indoctrination could be interpreted as a sleight against God. You are quoting me line by line and yet you don't seem to understand the point.

None of this addresses any point I've made or question I've asked.

I don't see how this is relevant, and furthermore I fail to see how the inference follows.

Your claim that I know nothing about Christianity is false and irrelevant. The bulk of what you've said thus far is inflammatory, irrelevant and nonsensical. I don't understand why you say, "If you actually believe this nonsense then you should be foaming at the mouth in regard to [certain bad ideas]." It seems that you look favorably upon Christian indoctrination, disfavorably upon certain methods of education, and then you go on to suggest that the two are essentially the same thing.

What?

I fail to see how this is relevant. I fail to see how you've contributed anything of value. If the inflammatory nonsense continues, we're through. If you're nonsensical, you must be polite. If you're inflammatory, you must have a good argument. What you've typed out is simply internet pollution.

According to your 'response' virtually any reply to the OP is "inflammatory, irrelevant and nonsensical" so phfffft no sense in wasting any more time on it. Frankly I just don't think you can come up with a coherent response.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why would you take that?

There is nothing unChristian about raising your children with your values. Indeed, every parent raises their children with their values. That's part of parenting.

The problem is not the indoctrinatION, its what is or is not indoctrinatED. <= and this is where I answer (several times now) your question in your OP.

Cheerio.

So then you admit that indoctrination is not a path to the truth because indoctrination can be used to push any idea whatsoever.

Given that there are a thousand denominations of Christianity, why not refrain from indoctrinating your child with your potentially flawed doctrine and instead allow the infallible Holy Spirit to witness as God sees fit?

 

[civilwarbuff]

So then you admit that indoctrination is not a path to the truth because indoctrination can be used to push any idea whatsoever.

Given that there are a thousand denominations of Christianity, why not refrain from indoctrinating your child with your potentially flawed doctrine and instead allow the infallible Holy Spirit to witness as God sees fit?

2 Timothy 3:16-17
Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good action.

 

[JoeP222w]

Let me start by saying that I've never, not even once, seen the indoctrination of children explained to be a bad thing by any Christian. I've never seen one Christian rebuke another for the practice.

"Indoctrinate" or "Indoctrination" means to teach. So apparently you are against teaching children?

It can mean to teach apart divorced from teaching critical thought process. However, I know of no Christian that teaches their children to separate an active intellect from the learning process. Christians are not called to blind faith, nor do I know of any Christian that teaches their children to have blind faith. So the whole premise of your argument is incorrect.

Christianity, supposing it is true, will withstand the furious scrutiny of any academic nonbeliever, so there is no threat of extinction looming over it.

There is no threat to Christianity from thorough examination, because God's word is truth and it never fails. However, the unbeliever is not neutral or unbiased in their thought. They are in rebellion to God, and being in rebellion to God means that they are opposed to any fair examination of God's truth.

Furthermore, indoctrination should be unnecessary simply because either 1.) apologetics suffices to convince any rational person, or 2.) the Holy Spirit will reach out to everyone, or at least to those who are called, and since this comes from God it will be more effective than human means (indoctrination, apologetics, etc).

A key part of Apologetics is teaching. And the Holy Spirit does transform and teach an individual. But God uses believers as a means to do that, through teaching.

I understand that paternal instinct implores one to protect one's children, and in this case the parent is protecting the child from eternal hellfire, but indoctrination is only successful if it stamps out the freedom of choice in the child.

You have a false assumption that man has autonomous free will. He does not. His choices are limited to his nature, and apart from God's grace, the individual can only make sinful or corrupt choices because of the fallen nature of man.

But even the Calvanists must admit that indoctrination is pointless since indoctrination of a child who is not chosen by God will not result in the child being saved whereas failure to indoctrinate a chosen child will do no harm to the child's salvation.

The fundamental error in this statement is the assumption that we know who God's elect are, where we do not have this knowledge. And God commands the Christian to proclaim His gospel to all nations, not just the elect.

So in summary, please explain why indoctrination is acceptable, why it is necessary, and what the overall motivation/thought process underlying indoctrination is.

Back to the original thought: Indoctrination is teaching. Unless someone teaches a child, they will not learn. No one is self-taught. For Christian parents, it is necessary, because it is the most loving thing you can do for a child, is to teach them the truth of God, and secondly because God commands Christian parents to teach their children. The motivation is love, not only so the child can learn about God's holy, perfect and righteous wrath against sin, but moreso that they can learn about God's immeasurable grace, mercy and love. Without a proper understanding of God's righteous justice and wrath against sin, God's mercy, grace and love are robbed of their meaning.

 

[Poppyseed78]

"Indoctrination" is a loaded term. By definition, it just means to teach. Everyone can choose to raise their kids as they see fit (within reason, of course). At some point, all children ask existential questions like "Who made us?" and "What happens when we die?" Parents have to answer these questions in some way. For some, the answers are "God" and "We go to Heaven," and for others, it's "We don't really know, we came to be through the process of evolution" and "Nothing". And of course, there is a wide range of ideas in between.

No matter what, parents can't be completely, 100% unbiased regarding what they teach their kids about life and death. Whether your religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or you are agnostic, atheist, humanist, or a combination of any of these - it's impossible to not steer your kids in some sort of direction. You can choose not to answer your kids' questions at all, but that doesn't seem wise either.

Ultimately, kids will grow up and make their own choices about what they believe in. But parents make the call about what is the best way to raise their kids.

 

[redleghunter]

So then you admit that indoctrination is not a path to the truth because indoctrination can be used to push any idea whatsoever.

Given that there are a thousand denominations of Christianity, why not refrain from indoctrinating your child with your potentially flawed doctrine and instead allow the infallible Holy Spirit to witness as God sees fit?

Who said or agreed with you that teaching the Christian faith is indoctrination?

Your OP assumes quite a bit. The first assumption is everyone agreeing with you on your definition of indoctrination.

Cults indoctrinate. Christians teach and preach. Perhaps a history book on the First Great Awakening in the US colonies might clarify or instruct you on the distinction between 'indoctrinate' and 'teach.'

Or perhaps you could enlighten us with some NT passages which show the early church forcing people to be Christian against their free will?

 

[rambot]

Let me start by saying that I've never, not even once, seen the indoctrination of children explained to be a bad thing by any Christian. I've never seen one Christian rebuke another for the practice. In fact I don't even know if I've ever even seen a Christian even address this issue at all, apart from perhaps 1.) when a Christian is questioned on it by an atheist, or 2.) when a Christian remarks that someone is not raising their children properly (seeming to indicate a pro-indoctrination stance).

Therefore I will assume, until told otherwise, that all Christians are of the persuasion that indoctrination of children is acceptable. I am curious as to why this is found to be acceptable.

I also am curious as to why this practice is necessary, since, if we suppose that Christianity is the one true religion, there should be no dire need to perpetuate the religion by means of indoctrinating young minds. Christianity, supposing it is true, will withstand the furious scrutiny of any academic nonbeliever, so there is no threat of extinction looming over it. Furthermore, indoctrination should be unnecessary simply because either 1.) apologetics suffices to convince any rational person, or 2.) the Holy Spirit will reach out to everyone, or at least to those who are called, and since this comes from God it will be more effective than human means (indoctrination, apologetics, etc).

I understand that paternal instinct implores one to protect one's children, and in this case the parent is protecting the child from eternal hellfire, but indoctrination is only successful if it stamps out the freedom of choice in the child. This, to me, seems to be a way of telling God that he is doing it wrong because, apart from Calvanists, free will is more or less a staple doctrine. But even the Calvanists must admit that indoctrination is pointless since indoctrination of a child who is not chosen by God will not result in the child being saved whereas failure to indoctrinate a chosen child will do no harm to the child's salvation.

So in summary, please explain why indoctrination is acceptable, why it is necessary, and what the overall motivation/thought process underlying indoctrination is.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "indoctrination". I think teaching children a firm moral structure is important and I think teaching them about all aspects of this world that they are curious about is a good thing. I think that showing them what I believe is okay and I hope that they believe the same thing as me. And let's be real here, I don't believe for even a second that if a staunch atheist has children and indoctrinates them that there is no God and that child still finds a faith in something, that they would be happy about that. I know several atheists that ACTIVELY keep faiths out of their house. So, I don't think that's any better.

I have to say that the idea of "freedom of a choice" for a child is actually stupid. If you know enough about child development you know that children aren't always capable of making appropriate decisions and that is normally just because they are unable to consider all aspects and potential outcomes (or consequences) of their decisions. Their tiny little brains are still developing. Why do you believe an 8 year old is capable of making good choices for their life? Sexual congress with a minor is considered taboo because they do not comprehend the entirety of the action they are taking apart of. The same is true with moral development. Parents are there to guide the process as they see fit.
And it is CATAGORICALLY innappropriate (and always coming from someone who doesn't have kids), to suggest that parents should not have an intrinsic part of that process.

What I can't understand is the idea that allowing children to, essentially drift through their existence with no rudder, is considered the more appropriate and viable.

If you are choosing the word "indoctrinate" in lieu of "teach", then that seems more like an attempt to be inflammatory