How to not brainwash your children with your faith? CC

[Ellie]

I have family members that, if asked, will identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.  I'm capitalizing the word because that's the way they use it.  They attend non-denomination churches or home church.  They are nothing like the Episcopals I know nor would they want to be confused with Episcopals.  Way too liberal for them.  I guess I shouldn't have capitalized it and used it as an adjective which for me means the Bible is their sole basis for faith and they take the entire Bible literally.  Anyway, that's what they call themselves.  I thought it must be a rather common name for very conservative, Bible believing Christians.  Heck, I've even heard Catholics call other extremely conservative Catholics evangelical Catholics as a descriptive term.

 

I think it's a pretty recent thing. Mr. Ellie and I, and all the Christians we have known over the last 40 years, would refer to ourselves as...Christians. It would not have occurred to us that it was necessary to add a modifier to that, other than perhaps the fact that we attended a specific fellowship/denomination, and then only if asked.

[Chris in VA]

LOL--We are Episcopalians, not Episcopals.

 

And yes, some of us are Evangelical.

 

just sayin' :laugh:

 

(not offended in the least)

[poppy]

Teaching children the truth is not brainwashing.

 

Sounds like a quote from a cult leader.

[Slache]

I don't like "evangelicals" as a term to describe all Protestants because it's just inaccurate. I do think it is fair and inoffensive to say that Episcopalians are not Evangelicals.  But I do wish there was a term we could use aside from "Christian."  That's problematic, obviously, because it leads to all the painful "She's not Christian, she's Catholic" confusion and hurt.

I wish Protestants didn't mind being called Protestants.

I wonder if that's a cultural thing. I know Christians who refer to themselves as protestants in catholic circles to specify. I don't consider myself a protestant because I'm a baptist and baptists have their roots before the reformation and therefore were not "protesting" the Catholic Church. I've been called a protestant by my mother in law and didn't correct her.

 

To me, brainwashing involves shutting down any other viewpoints. It means not admitting to any possibility of being wrong, and deliberately misrepresenting information to skew it towards one belief system, and to undermine others. It also predicates emotional support and affection upon the condition of continued belief and participation. The OP doesn't strike me as brainwashing.

But I believe it's something can be done unintentionally.

 

Teaching children the truth is not brainwashing.

I agree and I hope you didn't find the term offensive. I couldn't think of a better one. I don't want to force my children to act a certain way, I want to lead them to Christ. I've seen family after family after family force their kids to act Christian when they thought their kids were saves, but weren't. That's what I'm afraid of.

[HRAAB]

LOL--We are Episcopalians, not Episcopals.

 

And yes, some of us are Evangelical.

 

just sayin' :laugh:

 

(not offended in the least)

 

Oops!  My aunt was Episcopalian; she would never have grouped herself with the Christians I'm referring to.  This is where it gets too confusing for me.  :001_rolleyes:

[HRAAB]

Wow, I am a protestant and never had a problem being called one. Where did you get the idea that protestants object to being called protestants?

 

I think you are just talking rhetoric on the rest on it. Many Catholics believe no other religion is Christian. Likewise, some Christian denominations believe that Catholics are not really Christian. It goes all directions. I have been in a Mass where a priest said that Catholics were the only Christians and the Pope was the only way to God, which is in direct violation of the bible. Some Christians say if you are against the bible, and you do not follow Christ and what Christ has said in the bible, you are not a Christian. But likewise, other Christians do not believe in the literal translation of the bible. And my husband grew up in Catholic schools and I cannot believe the load of crap he was fed about the many non-Catholic religions.

 

One thing I do take issue with on religions is when they teach hate. There is enough hate. Any religion that teaches hate should just change their title to hate-group. That includes any religion that teaches their child that everyone else but them is going to hell.

 

I do want to respond to the above.  In 53 years of being Catholic (I'm not practicing now but my entire family is), I have never once heard another Catholic make such a statement - even the most conservative of conservatives.  Nor have I ever heard a priest make such a statement mainly because that is absolutely contrary to Catholic dogma.  The Pope has nothing to do with salvation since he is in need of salvation like the rest of us.  I'm not doubting you heard it, but it so far outside the norm, I have to wonder if it was St. Pius X sect or something.

 

I guess in one way it's not really my issue anymore, but when I hear something like that, I'm like  :001_huh: .

[Slache]

I do want to respond to the above.  In 53 years of being Catholic (I'm not practicing now but my entire family is), I have never once heard another Catholic make such a statement - even the most conservative of conservatives.  Nor have I ever heard a priest make such a statement mainly because that is absolutely contrary to Catholic dogma.  The Pope has nothing to do with salvation since he is in need of salvation like the rest of us.  I'm not doubting you heard it, but it so far outside the norm, I have to wonder if it was St. Pius X sect or something.

 

I guess in one way it's not really my issue anymore, but when I hear something like that, I'm like  :001_huh: .

 

I've heard it several times. I lived in Cincinnati, which is where most of my knowledge on Catholicism comes from. My mother in law used to cry over what I did to her family. She's a baptist now though. Her family is furious.

[HRAAB]

I've heard it several times. I lived in Cincinnati, which is where most of my knowledge on Catholicism comes from. My mother in law used to cry over what I did to her family. She's a baptist now though. Her family is furious.

 

Well, there are extremists and nuts in all religions.

[HS Mom in NC]

In reference to the Protestant term, most people use it to mean not a Catholic or Orthodox Christian.  They can also use it to mean doctrinal descendants of Luther or Calvin.  Others, like many different types of Baptists really don't like the term because they don't want to be associated with certain Reform or other specifically Protestant doctrines.  So, what people on both sides of that need to do is ask if the term is being used generally such as Catholic vs. non-Catholic or specifically, in reference to doctrine such christening infants vs. believer's baptism.

 

If I were having a general conversation, I would not correct someone calling me a Protestant.  If I were having a doctrinal discussion I would correct them and explain that I don't hold many Protestant or Catholic doctrinal views. I would never be offended, but I think when you start getting into the specifics of doctrine, it's important to be very clear.

[Reefgazer]

Two thoughts on this post:

 

1.  I don't think anyone is forcing their kids to believe something; I don't believe you can force faith on someone.  It may "appear" that the children are brainwashed and come away believing, but if a kid doesn't believe and is in a family that forces it, they'll just go underground and play along to keep the peace.  I believe faith has to be voluntary.

 

2.  If you are teaching a child to believe something that is not factual ("faith"), that is brainwashing (or attempting to brainwash).  I don't mean for that to sound negative or disrespectful, but I don't know any other tag for it.  We take our kids to church regularly, we don't expose them to other faiths outside of, say, history class, and they are raised in a Christian home; it's brainwashing to some degree.  Eh, OK.  It's still what I think is best for them and I can live with it.  :)

I'm a Christian  :ohmy:. I obviously have a desire to raise my children in a way that they come to know the Lord. I will teach them the Bible, use Christian curriculum, take them to church and pray with and for them. But I know so many people that essentially force and brainwash their kids into believing what they believe and acting the way they want them to act. Not good. Not good for the kids, not good for the parents and in no way does this honor the Lord, the one this is all supposed to be about.

 

I wasn't raised Christian. My mom was an addict and my dad was gone being an addict somewhere else. I'm only now learning what it means to be a parent and to love someone and put their needs first. So, learning how to be a christian parent is just another heap on top of what I don't already know.

 

I will teach my kids about evolution, other religions, and things of that nature so they can see the world for what it is. They already see us engaging with JWs and Mormons (no offence meant, we just have large theological differences).

 

So, what do you do, as a christian to raise your child in the Lord? What did you do right? What do you regret?

 

Thanks,

 

Rachel

 

ETA: This is sort of a shout out (or whatever s/o stands for) of ?'s for christians with adult children. Just a more concentrated question.

 

[poppy]

In reference to the Protestant term, most people use it to mean not a Catholic or Orthodox Christian.  They can also use it to mean doctrinal descendants of Luther or Calvin.  Others, like many different types of Baptists really don't like the term because they don't want to be associated with certain Reform or other specifically Protestant doctrines.  So, what people on both sides of that need to do is ask if the term is being used generally such as Catholic vs. non-Catholic or specifically, in reference to doctrine such christening infants vs. believer's baptism.

 

If I were having a general conversation, I would not correct someone calling me a Protestant.  If I were having a doctrinal discussion I would correct them and explain that I don't hold many Protestant or Catholic doctrinal views. I would never be offended, but I think when you start getting into the specifics of doctrine, it's important to be very clear.

 

Would you call yourself an Evangelical? The term doesn't apply to all Protestants but it certainly does seem to apply to many 'nondenominational' churches I've seen.

[poppy]

 

 

I do want to respond to the above.  In 53 years of being Catholic (I'm not practicing now but my entire family is), I have never once heard another Catholic make such a statement - even the most conservative of conservatives.  Nor have I ever heard a priest make such a statement mainly because that is absolutely contrary to Catholic dogma.  The Pope has nothing to do with salvation since he is in need of salvation like the rest of us.  I'm not doubting you heard it, but it so far outside the norm, I have to wonder if it was St. Pius X sect or something.

 

Catholics who pay attention to doctrine would never say that non-Catholic Christians are not Christians. 

[Jennifer132]

I didn't read the replies, so these are just my thoughts based on the OP question. Personally, I think the Bible tells us to pass on our faith to our children. We are to "train them up in the way they should go", and teach them of God's words, "when we rise up and when we lay down and when we walk by the way". In some sense, passing anything down to your children, whatever the belief is, is "brainwashing" if you want to call it that. Even someone who believes in nothing and just lives life is by default teaching their child to also believe nothing.

 

Kids will choose their own way as they grow and mature in their thinking. Parents can influence, but most kid's will make a choice on their own at some point to either stay with their faith or leave it. I recommend being open to questions about other faiths, speaking openly and without strong emotions toward topics that are different than your faith, and allowing your children to make choices based on their own conscience. That doesn't mean you don't raise them in the faith, but you don't shame them for asking about something different either. Just my two cents. :)

 

Eta: I also think the word brainwashing indicates some sort of mal-intent. Like you're trying to coerce or control someone's beliefs for your own selfish gain. I'm not sure many Christians would see passing on their faith in that light.

[Lady Florida.]

I have family members that, if asked, will identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.  I'm capitalizing the word because that's the way they use it. <snip>   Heck, I've even heard Catholics call other extremely conservative Catholics evangelical Catholics as a descriptive term.

 

I have heard it used too, and have seen it both capitalized and not capitalized. I think the most surprising thing to me (as a cradle Catholic) was when I first heard the term evangelical Catholic. That did not make sense to me as I've never known Catholic teaching that emphasized faith alone. In fact, I was taught that "faith without works is dead". However, I've been away from the Church a long time, so I'm only going on knowledge of what I was taught long ago.

 

I think it's a pretty recent thing. Mr. Ellie and I, and all the Christians we have known over the last 40 years, would refer to ourselves as...Christians. 

 

Evangelicalism has been around a long time has it not? Martin Luther himself used the term. And John Wesley was big on it too. Maybe the way it's used/understood has changed recently, but it's not new.

 

I do want to respond to the above.  In 53 years of being Catholic (I'm not practicing now but my entire family is), I have never once heard another Catholic make such a statement - even the most conservative of conservatives.  Nor have I ever heard a priest make such a statement mainly because that is absolutely contrary to Catholic dogma.  The Pope has nothing to do with salvation since he is in need of salvation like the rest of us.  I'm not doubting you heard it, but it so far outside the norm, I have to wonder if it was St. Pius X sect or something.

 

I guess in one way it's not really my issue anymore, but when I hear something like that, I'm like  :001_huh: .

 

This. We were taught that baptism is necessary, but the Catholic church has long recognized non-Catholic Christian baptisms as being legitimate. There might be sects don't accept this, but they're pretty far out of mainstream Catholicism. It is not an official RCC teaching by any means.

 

It's not my issue anymore either, but for some reason I still get a bit rankled when I hear statements on Catholic dogma that are incorrect. It probably comes from years of anti-Catholic sentiment I endured when I still did believe.

 

Back to the OP: Rachel, you sound like you want your kids to learn your faith but also learn about what else is out there and what others believe. If you wanted to brainwash them, you'd keep them from learning such things. I often disagree with your posts on religious beliefs (even when I don't respond to them) but not this time. From your OP it's apparent that you hope they'll embrace your faith when they reach adulthood, but you aren't going to use coercion and brainwashing to make that happen.

[Laurie4b]

I understand this, but normally when I hear someone talk about evangelicals today, they mean conservative, fundamentalist, Bible believing.

 

So, should it be capitalized or not?  I'm confused.

 

This is an accurate article, I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

 

I self-identify as evangelical and I and the evangelicals I know would be using the term to distinguish from fundamentalist. The article does a good job of explaining the differentiation, I think. Most would call themselves conservative with respect to doctrine/theology but may or may not be conservative politically. I know as many evangelicals in one major party as in the other.  I know Catholics who would self-identify as evangelical Catholics, Anglicans who would self-identify that way, Presbyterians, etc. as well as people who attend non-denominational churches.

 

Here's a quote:

The Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals states:

 

There are three senses in which the term "evangelical" is used today at the beginning of the 21st-century. The first is to view "evangelical" as all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

A second sense is to look at evangelicalism as an organic group of movements and religious tradition. Within this context "evangelical" denotes a style as much as a set of beliefs. As a result, groups such as black Baptists and Dutch Reformed Churches, Mennonites and Pentecostals, Catholic charismatics and Southern Baptists all come under the evangelical umbrella, thus demonstrating just how diverse the movement really is.

A third sense of the term is as the self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Importantly, its core personalities (like Harold John Ockenga and Billy Graham), institutions (for instance, Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College), and organizations (such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Youth for Christ) have played a pivotal role in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion that extends beyond these "card-carrying" evangelicals.^[77]

[AimeeM]

I'm not anti-brainwashing. It has its place. Everyone "brainwashes" their children with their ideals - it is so much more admirable than indifference, imo.

[LucyStoner]

I do want to respond to the above. In 53 years of being Catholic (I'm not practicing now but my entire family is), I have never once heard another Catholic make such a statement - even the most conservative of conservatives. Nor have I ever heard a priest make such a statement mainly because that is absolutely contrary to Catholic dogma. The Pope has nothing to do with salvation since he is in need of salvation like the rest of us. I'm not doubting you heard it, but it so far outside the norm, I have to wonder if it was St. Pius X sect or something.

 

I guess in one way it's not really my issue anymore, but when I hear something like that, I'm like :001_huh: .

Ditto for my life as someone born to devout practicing Catholics.

[albeto.]

Instructions for Christian living are found in the NT and apply to believers, not unbelievers. People in the OT were not believers in Jesus Christ because He hadn't come yet. Judaism is a culture based faith and not about regeneration through the Holy Spirit so those instructions aren't about Christian living. See my posts upthread on my views on Scriptural interpretation, specifically about Dispensationalism. Your reference to "the law on their hearts" is from Romans Ch.2 which follows a few verses earlier with, "God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." How is that saying that not having faith in Jesus is acceptable?

 

Yours is an unfalsifiable claim, believed to be true or false by faith ultimately. The question delves into a theological discussion which is by nature impossible to prove or falsify. It's irrelevant to the topic, which is fine, but there's no endpoint to this kind of discussion. Suffice it to say I acknowledge this is your belief. I acknowledge it is supported by the bible and through history.

 

Everyone has to teach their children to live in the culture by a code of conduct.  Unbelievers and believers do it all the time.but that's not the same thing as living out faith on daily basis by a believer.

I disagree. "Living out faith" is religion-speak for finding pertinent religious practices and beliefs to justify a particular code of conduct.

 

Are you suggesting I should try to get my children to outwardly conform to a faith they don't have through some sort of brainwashing? I really don't understand where you're going with your posts.

I am suggesting no such thing. My posts were in reply to Patty Joanna, asking for clarification about what she meant by loving your child being the trump card and everyone wins.

[albeto.]

I tried your suggestion on your test.  This is what I find - there is no objective evidence to conclude that the only source of legitimate knowledge of religious belief is objective information. Exclusive reliance on objective information is a subjective standard.

 

So I decided I would try another method.  I would take the beliefs of religion and science seriously and apply all the possible ways of knowing things.  This includes learning about the texts and traditions of the religion.  Beyond that the history and physical evidence (courtroom level evidence not just science level evidence) from the real world.  Personal experience will also play into this because religions usually address the real problems of real people.  In the end I will follow the evidence (all the evidence not just the pre-selected categories of evidence) wherever it leads. 

 

As for brainwashing, my kids are my responsibility so they will follow me on my path.  Forgive me for bringing up a reference to scripture but I will not leave them in Egypt without me, and I will not let them stay in the dry bed of the Red Sea (to be drowned). They are going to wonder in the wilderness with me because I am responsible for them and  I love them.  I will not leave them on there own.  

 

As someone said earlier, there is no room for love in objective study.  The ability to go beyond the objective is what separates us from the animals and even the neanderthals - they only dealt with the objective observable world around them.  Humans have the amazing ability to go beyond the objective.

 

What do you mean by the "beliefs of science"? Science promotes no belief. In your research, will you be limiting yourself to religious beliefs about knowing things? Will you also reach out to non religious beliefs and the tools they claim as a legitimate source of knowledge, sources such as telepathy, extra sensory perception, information from alien intelligence, gnostic messages revealed in numerology? the stars? speaking with the dead? memories from past lives?

[albeto.]

I agree and I hope you didn't find the term offensive. I couldn't think of a better one. I don't want to force my children to act a certain way, I want to lead them to Christ. I've seen family after family after family force their kids to act Christian when they thought their kids were saves, but weren't. That's what I'm afraid of.

 

That sounds to me like a completely separate issue. It seems to me that what you're really after is figuring out how to avoid raising hypocrites. I think that's a tough problem because the nature of religious belief is to allow for extra-religious sources to be used as evidence to support a particular claim or belief (sources like personal experiences). Because the bible says so many things, many diametrically opposing things, one finds support for their particular theological point of view, both from within and without the bible (including the history of the religious community). That means Christians are going to act in ways that conform to one theological point of view, but contradict another. In essence, you might say Christians are incapable of being hypocritical if what they do conforms to their sincere belief as inspired by the bible. Then again, you might say Christian behavior is inherently hypocritical because it contradicts some theological point of view in order to maintain another. Maybe what you are really striving for is to raise empathetic, courteous, compassionate children. 

[Justified]

I am going to just throw this out there. Brainwashing comes in all forms, atheists to scientists to Christian to Catholicism to I-don't-care-about-anything-but-a-good-jerry-springer-fight. Each mind is molded. Some logically and some not so much. If this is your fear, it is unfounded and is created by the policy of evil to keep you from being empowered to make a wise decision.

 

I do consider myself to be a grace believer. I recognize that I am in the dispensation of grace and I enjoy the peace of knowing that I am justified unto eternal life by believing (that is I have saving faith) that Jesus is who He says He is and He did what He said He did and will do as He has said He will do. He also provided for my sanctification by making me dead to sin and I am to reckon this as true so that I can walk in newness of life. My reckoning this to be true is the renewing of my mind (brainwashing? ;) ) It is the word of God that does all the work that is it is effectually working in me. I do not put myself under the Mosaic law in any fashion albeit tithing or any religious ruling. Rather I walk after the Spirit that is who He has made me to be justified, redeemed and dead to sin. Every moment is a new moment in which I can choose who I serve sin or righteousness. For the law came only to condemn and because of the weakness of the flesh, it had no power to make one live righteously. So righteousness of God was imputed to me when I believed and so I can declare that I am righteous not by works but by faith and because this is who I have been made to be so I walk after the Spirit choosing to serve righteousness. Can you have saving faith and serve sin? Yep. That is what happens in the dispensation of grace. It is God's goodness that is His mercy, love and offer of grace to mankind that leads people to repentance not the law as some might think.

 

What you might be struggling with is how to answer those tough questions that come to your mind when you hear contradicting statements in the bible...if this is the case you might find it helpful in finding a grace pastor that will teach you to rightly divide the Word and can help you to understand the most foundational books of our faith, the book of Romans. If you can't find one, I recommend Dr. Mike McDaniels who has an excellent series on Romans called Justification and Sanctification that you can find free on YouTube. It's rather a long series (over a 150 videos) as he teaches thoroughly on every word of Romans, but he is biblical and demonstrates the importance of context when reading the Bible. He teaches and not preaches.

 

It is God's Word that persuades you to the truth whether you are a child and an adult so let Him do the work. You just facilitate and reckon it to be true and be sure to know how to rightly divide. This is my plan for my kids. I think the Word of God rightly divided can stand on its own. Once you see it for yourself, you will be at peace about teaching your children the Word of God.

 

Grace and peace to you.

[HS Mom in NC]

Would you call yourself an Evangelical? The term doesn't apply to all Protestants but it certainly does seem to apply to many 'nondenominational' churches I've seen.

 

Yes.  The terms fundamentalist and evangelical would be terms people who attend my church would use to describe themselves.

[HS Mom in NC]

 

 

I disagree. "Living out faith" is religion-speak for finding pertinent religious practices and beliefs to justify a particular code of conduct.

 

 

 

 

Not when there's genuine faith/belief in something.  Having genuine faith or belief in something  should always mean asking yourself, "How does this apply to my every day life and how can I do things that are philosophically consistent?"  In other words, "How do I live so I'm not a hypocrite-saying one thing and doing something that contradicts it?" 

 

I think getting into a discussion about faith when you don't have any yourself is not a great idea.  It's really hard to tell someone with an experience outside your own range of experiences what motivates them.  I wouldn't presume to tell someone who isn't a person of faith or has a different faith than mine how it's working for them, why they do what they do, etc.  How could I possibly know?  I can only ask questions and get them to tell me what they're thinking and doing and why.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

What do you mean by the "beliefs of science"? Science promotes no belief. In your research, will you be limiting yourself to religious beliefs about knowing things? Will you also reach out to non religious beliefs and the tools they claim as a legitimate source of knowledge, sources such as telepathy, extra sensory perception, information from alien intelligence, gnostic messages revealed in numerology? the stars? speaking with the dead? memories from past lives?

 

You did not respond to anything I said (although you did misquote me and respond to the misquote) and I do not know what your line of questioning even means.

[MrsJewelsRae]

If teaching my children about Jesus and the Bible is "brainwashing" my child then how is it any different from a parent teaching their child to be an atheist, or to follow Allah, or ? When a parent feels strongly about something they impart those values to their children- so are all parents brainwashing- or is it only Christians? My God knows me and loves me and gave everything for me, I would be one cold mother if I didn't tell this amazing and wonderful truth to my children.

[Rosie_0801]

If teaching my children about Jesus and the Bible is "brainwashing" my child then how is it any different from a parent teaching their child to be an atheist, or to follow Allah, or ? When a parent feels strongly about something they impart those values to their children- so are all parents brainwashing- or is it only Christians? My God knows me and loves me and gave everything for me, I would be one cold mother if I didn't tell this amazing and wonderful truth to my children.

 

 

Are they rhetorical questions? If not, they've been answered quite clearly in this thread.

[Slache]

Are they rhetorical questions? If not, they've been answered quite clearly in this thread.

 

It's a long thread.

[Rosie_0801]

It's a long thread.

 

Yep. And those kinds of questions are always answered in the same sorts of ways. Even when the threads are short.

 

[unfrumpable.]

Are they rhetorical questions? If not, they've been answered quite clearly in this thread.

 

Dang, you beat me to it!

 

But yes, those questions have been answered by Christians and those who aren't Christian as well. I think the general consensus is that everyone "brainwashes" their kids simply because your kids are going to learn not only what you purposely teach them, but from what they observe of you as well. At some point it's just going to be called "raising your children as you see fit." I think the general consensus is that actual "brainwashing" occurs when the children are forced, sheltered, discouraged from asking questions, and/or not allowed any knowledge of anything outside of what their parents want them to know or being told there are dire consequences for deviating from what the parents are teaching, therefor forcing the children to cling to the teaching out of fear.

[Guest Boys4Us]

Your heart to serve your children is obvious and I think you already have the right idea. Teach them your sincere beliefs and why. Model your faith. Teach them the WORD and the science and history that backs it up. Teach them what others believe (and why) as well. Help them develop their worldview through critical thinking as they move through the high school years. Give them freedom to ask questions. And PRAY!  I don't think you need to fear "brainwashing" if you approach teaching in this balanced way. However, you can teach a child every day of their life what you want them to believe but as you should know from The Bible, God isn't after what we "say we believe"  or the external actions but the Heart,a true relationship with Jesus; and only GOD can change the heart. A child can go through the motions for years, say the sinners prayer, be baptized, etc (that wonderful obedient child) and not truly be a believer. I know...I had one, until 2 years ago. He's 20 now and on a terribly destructive road right. It has been heartbreaking to say the least. However, I am learning that God is the Author of his life, not me. I am called to be a faithful parent, but God has planned his days. I pray even more for him as I know my prayers are all I have...my teaching is over. I share this not to discourage (I still have three kids, 17, 15, 10 and I intend to faithful to teach them as well) but to share that it's all about HIM. And when they do choose HIM, HE gets the glory. So, I encourage you to continue with your soft heart for your children, pray for wisdom and discernment, and trust the Lord. He loves them more than you do :-)

[Jasperstone]

I do want to respond to the above. In 53 years of being Catholic (I'm not practicing now but my entire family is), I have never once heard another Catholic make such a statement - even the most conservative of conservatives. Nor have I ever heard a priest make such a statement mainly because that is absolutely contrary to Catholic dogma. The Pope has nothing to do with salvation since he is in need of salvation like the rest of us. I'm not doubting you heard it, but it so far outside the norm, I have to wonder if it was St. Pius X sect or something.

 

I guess in one way it's not really my issue anymore, but when I hear something like that, I'm like :001_huh: .

 

 

Huh, I thought that the Pope has recently said that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church?

 

I'm only on my phone, but will try and find the article later.

[Jasperstone]

 

Elisabet1, on 29 Jun 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:

 

Wow, I am a protestant and never had a problem being called one. Where did you get the idea that protestants object to being called protestants?

 

I think you are just talking rhetoric on the rest on it. Many Catholics believe no other religion is Christian. Likewise, some Christian denominations believe that Catholics are not really Christian. It goes all directions. I have been in a Mass where a priest said that Catholics were the only Christians and the Pope was the only way to God, which is in direct violation of the bible. Some Christians say if you are against the bible, and you do not follow Christ and what Christ has said in the bible, you are not a Christian. But likewise, other Christians do not believe in the literal translation of the bible. And my husband grew up in Catholic schools and I cannot believe the load of crap he was fed about the many non-Catholic religions.

 

One thing I do take issue with on religions is when they teach hate. There is enough hate. Any religion that teaches hate should just change their title to hate-group. That includes any religion that teaches their child that everyone else but them is going to hell

 

 

Ishki, on 29 Jun 2014 - 02:42 AM, said:

 

 

I do want to respond to the above. In 53 years of being Catholic (I'm not practicing now but my entire family is), I have never once heard another Catholic make such a statement - even the most conservative of conservatives. Nor have I ever heard a priest make such a statement mainly because that is absolutely contrary to Catholic dogma. The Pope has nothing to do with salvation since he is in need of salvation like the rest of us. I'm not doubting you heard it, but it so far outside the norm, I have to wonder if it was St. Pius X sect or something.

 

I guess in one way it's not really my issue anymore, but when I hear something like that, I'm like :001_huh:

 

I hope I'm allowed to put up links. :mellow:

 

Found some-

 

Pope Francis is under attack for saying that outside the Church there is no salvation

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/06/03/pope-francis-is-under-attack-for-saying-that-outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation-its-a-poke-in-the-eye-says-one-presbyterian-why-hes-wrong/

 

 

Pope Francis: “it is not possible to find Jesus outside the Churchâ€

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/04/pope-francis-it-is-not-possible-to-find-jesus-outside-the-church/

 

John Paul II Said, "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church" more than any Pope in History

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/john-paul-ii-said-no-salvation-outside.html

[MercyA]

Huh, I thought that the Pope has recently said that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church?

 

The Catholic catechism says the same thing (see section 846).  

[NASDAQ]

It is very questionable whether it is possible for one human being to "brainwash" another, even in a Japanese internment camp or a lunatic cult.

 

Nothing you could or would do to your child in your own home will brainwash them.

[NASDAQ]

Also, my understanding of that passage in the catechism is that all people are saved via the Catholic Church but not that all people must be members of the Catholic Church to be thus saved.

 

But not a Catholic. So take it for what it's worth.

[DawnM]

Huh.  What do you mean?   How do you not hold many doctrinal views with Protestants?

 

I am Baptist and consider myself a Protestant.  However, I could still absolutely say that I hold many Catholic views......virgin birth, resurrection of Jesus, trinity, basically all the core doctrines of the Christian faith.

 

Dawn

 

 

In reference to the Protestant term, most people use it to mean not a Catholic or Orthodox Christian.  They can also use it to mean doctrinal descendants of Luther or Calvin.  Others, like many different types of Baptists really don't like the term because they don't want to be associated with certain Reform or other specifically Protestant doctrines.  So, what people on both sides of that need to do is ask if the term is being used generally such as Catholic vs. non-Catholic or specifically, in reference to doctrine such christening infants vs. believer's baptism.

 

If I were having a general conversation, I would not correct someone calling me a Protestant.  If I were having a doctrinal discussion I would correct them and explain that I don't hold many Protestant or Catholic doctrinal views. I would never be offended, but I think when you start getting into the specifics of doctrine, it's important to be very clear.

 

[DawnM]

I am not seeing how anyone could brainwash someone into a faith in Jesus.  

 

And if we went to extremes, does that mean that everything we teach our children is brainwashing? 

 

I don't think this is true at all.  I teach my children what we believe and why we believe it.  I pray for them daily.  I pray for their spiritual growth, their academic growth, and their maturity growth.  

 

If someone sees this as brainwashing, then so be it.  

[speedmom4]

I hope I'm allowed to put up links. :mellow:

 

Found some-

 

Pope Francis is under attack for saying that outside the Church there is no salvation

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/06/03/pope-francis-is-under-attack-for-saying-that-outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation-its-a-poke-in-the-eye-says-one-presbyterian-why-hes-wrong/

 

 

Pope Francis: “it is not possible to find Jesus outside the Churchâ€

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/04/pope-francis-it-is-not-possible-to-find-jesus-outside-the-church/

 

John Paul II Said, "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church" more than any Pope in History

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/john-paul-ii-said-no-salvation-outside.html

I only read the first article and it corrects the assumption that Pope Francis meant that salvation is only found through the Catholic Church.

 

Pope Francis was speaking to Catholics. He is the head of our Church. He is speaking to Catholics who believe they don't need the Church. He is calling them back to the Church. He is correcting the view that a Catholic can grow in their faith alone, without community or the sacraments. Its very important to understand who his audience was and what the context was.

 

Elise in NC

[AlmiraGulch]

The Catholic catechism says the same thing (see section 846).  

 

Right, but 1) this is aimed at Catholics specifically, and 2) the very next passage supports what I was always taught in all the years I was Catholic, which is that you are not banned from salvation if you "seek God with a sincere heart," even if you are not Catholic.

 

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

 

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.³³⁷  

 

ETA:  I have no dog in this "fight".  I am no longer Catholic.  The misconceptions about the Catholic church always just catch me by surprise.   

[speedmom4]

The Catholic catechism says the same thing (see section 846).

Paragraph 846: How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: (161, 1257)

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

 

Then paragraph 847: This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

 

Paragraph 848:

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.â€338 (1260)

 

Paragraph 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word.â€

 

My husband and two sons recently came into the Catholic Church. My husband didn't need to be re-baptized even though it took place in a Church of Christ church. The Catholic Church recognizes any trinitarian baptism.

 

I am taking a class currently on the Catechism and there has never been a mention that non-Catholics are damned.

 

I'm only attempting to correct misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. It is often misunderstood and misrepresented.

 

Elise in NC

[Slache]

Your heart to serve your children is obvious and I think you already have the right idea. Teach them your sincere beliefs and why. Model your faith. Teach them the WORD and the science and history that backs it up. Teach them what others believe (and why) as well. Help them develop their worldview through critical thinking as they move through the high school years. Give them freedom to ask questions. And PRAY!  I don't think you need to fear "brainwashing" if you approach teaching in this balanced way. However, you can teach a child every day of their life what you want them to believe but as you should know from The Bible, God isn't after what we "say we believe"  or the external actions but the Heart,a true relationship with Jesus; and only GOD can change the heart. A child can go through the motions for years, say the sinners prayer, be baptized, etc (that wonderful obedient child) and not truly be a believer. I know...I had one, until 2 years ago. He's 20 now and on a terribly destructive road right. It has been heartbreaking to say the least. However, I am learning that God is the Author of his life, not me. I am called to be a faith parent, but God has planned his days. I pray even more for him as I know my prayers are all I have...my teaching is over. I share this not to discourage (I still have three kids, 17, 15, 10 and I intend to faithful to teach them as well) but to share that it's all about HIM. And when they do choose HIM, HE gets the glory. So, I encourage you to continue with your soft heart for your children, pray for wisdom and discernment, and trust the Lord. He loves them more than you do :-)

 

This was very beautiful. Thank you for taking the time to write it out.

[Luanne]

Sounds like a quote from a cult leader.

 

Why are you a cult leader?  Unless you can prove to me 100% the Bible is not true, then I don't care what you think.  The Bible has been proven to be the most historically accurate book in all of history.  If the history in it is accurate, I believe the rest of the book is accurate. 

[MercyA]

Right, but 1) this is aimed at Catholics specifically, and 2) the very next passage supports what I was always taught in all the years I was Catholic, which is that you are not banned from salvation if you "seek God with a sincere heart," even if you are not Catholic.

 

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

 

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.³³⁷

 

ETA:  I have no dog in this "fight".  I am no longer Catholic.  The misconceptions about the Catholic church always just catch me by surprise.   

 

Thanks for your thoughts, Almira.  I am not Catholic, but worked closely with Catholics for years and was often the only non-Catholic in the group. I have assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that I would not be considered one who "through no fault of [my] own, [does] not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church," since I have studied the doctrines of the Catholic Church extensively.  I thought that section was meant to apply to those who have never heard Catholic teachings.

[poppy]

Why are you a cult leader?  Unless you can prove to me 100% the Bible is not true, then I don't care what you think.  The Bible has been proven to be the most historically accurate book in all of history.  If the history in it is accurate, I believe the rest of the book is accurate. 

 

It can be 100% true to you, I totally respect that.

But " the most historically accurate book in all our history" c'mon.

God creates the world two different times, in two different orders in Genesis.

He creates MAN two different times, two different ways in Genesis.

 

It may be a book with multiple authors, it may be all symbolic, it may be 100% literal truth...... it is definitely confounding!

[HS Mom in NC]

Huh.  What do you mean?   How do you not hold many doctrinal views with Protestants?

 

I am Baptist and consider myself a Protestant.  However, I could still absolutely say that I hold many Catholic views......virgin birth, resurrection of Jesus, trinity, basically all the core doctrines of the Christian faith.

 

Dawn

  I don't want people to assume I go with many mainline Protestants on different doctrines because those doctrines are at the heart of what I believe the definition of Christian is and how a Christian can know what to do and how to do it.  Protestantism have many more doctrines than just priesthood of the believer.

 

I don't believe in christening or baptizing infants.  I only think believers should be baptized.  Some Protestants christen or baptize infants. 

 

I don't believe The Church is "spiritual Israel" who has replaced the covenant God made with Israel and now receives the blessings God promised Israel in His covenant with Him but some Protestants do. I think Catholics and Orthodox do too but I can't say for sure,  I believe literal Israel (Jewish people) are Israel and their covenant is still going with God in that they're still His chosen people the way they were then and that's separate than being a believer saved by Grace thorough Faith in Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean I think they're saved, but I don't think they've lost special nation status because most of them don't accept Jesus as the Messiah. I do recognize that there are some individual Jews who believe in Jesus, but that's different than special nation status.Many Protestants do think that God is done with literal Israel and that covenant no longer exists because of their rejection (as a whole) of Jesus as Messiah. 

 

 I don't believe in "bringing in the kingdom" as some Protestants do through voting in people who will work to establish Biblically based laws and make it better and better until Christ comes back.  I see no such mandate to Christians in the Bible. I also don't want OT type government either.  That was for Israel.

 

I don't mix the OT and the NT when it comes to decision making.  Being more Dispensational, I think the NT carries more weight and is directed at the Christian where the OT carries less because it's directed at literal Israel under a different covenant.  There's plenty to learn about the nature of God in it, but the OT is about externals when it comes to nations and outward law that can't change the heart, where as the NT is about the transformation of the soul and how to live that out when the Holy Spirit has regenerated a believer. Most Protestants see them as equally applicable to Christians and believe, since they're "spiritual Israel", they will be receiving the blessing listed in the OT with obedience to God.

 

People who hold to these kinds of doctrinal differences, are descended from the non-conformist and Ana-baptist movements, which historically were in direct conflict with ultimately separation from certain aspects of Protestantism (similar to the Reformation, just not on such a large and public scale.)  These groups may line up with many Protestants in other areas but they draw distinct lines elsewhere.  Like I said, I only think it warrants correction in a discussion about doctrine, not in a general discussion where people simply mean "Not Orthodox" or "not Catholic."

[AlmiraGulch]

Thanks for your thoughts, Almira. I am not Catholic, but worked closely with Catholics for years and was often the only non-Catholic in the group. I have assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that I would not be considered one who "through no fault of [my] own, [does] not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church," since I have studied the doctrines of the Catholic Church extensively. I thought that section was meant to apply to those who have never heard Catholic teachings.

I see.

 

The way we were always taught is that there are many paths, and everyone is responsible for his/her own soul, and as long as you're true to your own path then you should be good to go.

 

For Catholics, following the dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church is The Way. The fact that you heard Catholic teaching but didn't follow them wouldn't exclude you. The theory would be that you heard them but you didn't "Hear" them, beyond the audible sense of the word.

 

Of course I'm sure there are others that have been taught something other than that, but in my entire life, born and raised in the Cathlic Church, with deeply Catholic people on both sides of the family (including many nuns and lay ministers), I have never heard even once that non-Catholics are not true Christians. I happened to be talking to my mom about this a few minutes ago and she said the same thing.

 

I have heard the opposite, that Catholics are not really Christians, but that's a different topic entirely.

[Saddlemomma]

I have two very different situations going on which relate somewhat to your question and may shed some light on the difference between brainwashing and not brainwashing.

 

I have two DDs. The oldest is now 23.  I became a conservative Christian when she was 9 and subsequently married a man of the same persuasion.  This was quite a change for DD.  While she was still young, we did require her to go to church with us as a family twice a month.   Those times she was with her father (self-proclaimed Atheist, but who I believe is more Agnostic), she was not required to attend.

 

While I wanted to share my new faith with her, I also understood that she really hadn’t been brought up that way, and her father certainly had no interest in Christianity.  I did talk with her about things as she questioned.  When I got baptized in our pond, DD told me she had made a choice to follow Christ and asked to get baptized with me.  I was overjoyed, and we both got baptized.

 

Then I had DD2.  DD1 was now 12.  From day one, DD2 was very spiritually inclined.  She started speaking in 2-3 word sentences quite early  babbled constantly about her brother.  I don’t have any living sons, but I did have 3 miscarriages. 

My last miscarriage was while I was carrying DD2.  She was a 10-week fetus, and I also had an 8-week fetus which I lost.  Initially, I didn’t realize I was carrying two separate fetuses, and thought I had lost our DD.  DH and I were heartbroken and decided that since I was 38 and now had lost two (one earlier) with DH, that we would quite trying.  When I went in for an ultrasound to see if I needed a D&C, they discovered DD still firmly planted doing whirly-gigs in my womb.  I had lost a younger DC.  I continued to bleed heavily and have cramps for three more weeks because I couldn’t have a D&C.  We were overjoyed that we were still pregnant, but terrified too. However, everything worked out in the end.

 

Now, here was DD insisting she had a brother and kept telling us how she shared a room with him.  It was really freaky.  Eventually she stopped, and if you ask her about it now (at 11) she doesn’t remember any of it. 

 

At the age of 1 ½, DD2 wanted…â€Jesus in heart pleaseâ€.  She  could barely see above our bed!  I panicked!  I was still pretty new at this and didn’t want to mess things up, but we muddled through.  DD2 was ecstatic.

 

Cut to a few years and moving to ME.  I gave DD 1 the choice of remaining in VT with her father (I had full custody) to complete her senior year in her regular school or moving with us to ME and going to a strange school for her senior year.  I told her I would miss her terribly, but I would understand.  She decided to go with us.

 

Everything was fine and before going off to college DD1 reaffirmed her faith.  I cried, which is very unusual for me.  I worried about DD1 going off to a secular, liberal college, but she got into the writing program she wanted and was very happy.  I figured Sunday School and church had adequately prepared her.

 

Boy, was I WRONG!  This is where my education really began.  The hostility DD ran into every day from both students and professors was staggering.  There was absolutely no tolerance.  You either renounced your faith and agreed with the secular worldview or you were bullied and ridiculed.  One professor actually told my DD1 that after she was done with her, she would no longer be a Christian.

 

DD1 held on for the first two years, but by the third year, she buckled under pressure.  She had no reasonable foundation for her faith.  She couldn’t answer the tough questions without “….because the Bible says so.† She was never taught the reasonable arguments and facts that support a Christian worldview even better than a secular one.  She’s now more Agnostic than Atheist.  She still believes in God; she just thinks as long as she loves Him, any lifestyle is okay.  She now has a relativistic bent.  When she told me this, I was heartbroken, but I knew I couldn’t live her life and make her choices for her.  I told her this and stated that no matter what she believed, I loved her and she would always have that.

 

During this whole time, I was beginning to homeschool DD2.  She was all for the Lord; constantly wanting to please Him.  Studies were going well.  She still talked with Jesus like a friend in her prayers.

 

 Then came the day when DD1 called and demanded that I accept her version of Christianity as valid and true.  This was the hardest and most gut-wrenching day of my life. I gently told my precious DD1 that I couldn’t do that and continue to call myself a committed Christian.  However, I did tell her that I loved her no matter what her beliefs were and she would always have my heart.  This was not good enough for her.  She started spouting a bunch of curse words, called me all kinds of vile names, and I had to just quietly hang up.  I didn’t hear from her again for a year.  I was crushed.  My choice was my daughter or Christ.  He warned us this would happen, and I was living it.  I was able to keep tabs on her through some friends Facebook accounts, but I never directly messaged her.  She needed time.

 

This whole incident is what made me start to questions how I know what I know about my faith.  Why was DD1 so ill-prepared to answer the questions and ridicule thrown at her.  Where had I failed?  I didn’t want to make the same mistake with DD2!

 

I failed in thinking the church would educate my kids in reasonable faith.  I failed to realize that all DD1 was ever told was that we do this and believe this “….because the Bible says soâ€.  Heck, that’s what I thought.  My eyes were now opened.  I started to research and came upon the website, Stand To Reason (str.org).  Thus my journey in Apologetics had begun.  I ate it up.  Now I regularly listen to their podcasts, have several dozen books.

 

I learned that my faith is not my kids’ faith.  They have questions that need to be answered factually without invoking the Bible as the ultimate authority.  Reference it when appropriate, yes, but for science provide scientific concepts and back those up with factual findings that also support the Christian worldview, as well as a secular worldview.  Use the discrepancies to start a terrific discussion about how to determine which worldview has the right answers.  Let them discover which makes the most sense.  In short, they have to come to those conclusions on their own.  I have to provide both sides of the equation and let them know why I came to the conclusion I did.  What tipped the balance one way or another for me.  Then ask them what they think.

 

I started building the foundation of apologetics with DD2 in her science and history classes.  In fact, DD2 will be having a formal introductory course in Apologetics beginning next fall.  We learn both sides and discuss, discuss, discuss.

After a year, DD1 called me, totally broken and crying.  She wanted me, again, to validate her lifestyle (no she’s not gay) and tell me I approved.  Very, very, gently I told her that I loved her no matter what.  That I had missed her terribly, but I could not give her what she wanted.  There was silence on the phone, so I went on.  I explained to her that she was demanding the very thing from me that all those people who bullied her in the beginning were demanding of her.  I asked her to remember how she felt back then.  Then I told her that I had a right to my own opinion and beliefs just as she did hers.  The difference in our thinking and opinions didn’t make me love her less.  She was flesh of my flesh and that would never change.  I would always be here for her until my dying day, but that didn’t mean I couldn’t have a different opinion on certain things or a different belief system.

 

Finally, she understood what I was saying.  She realized that she was trying to force me into compliance with her worldview.  She finally realized that the tolerance of today isn’t true tolerance.  She actually apologized and told me she had missed me.  We talked for quite a while. 

 

Today, DD1 has a good job and is living on her own, here in Maine.  She keeps us up-to-date on her life and calls quite often or texts us.  She even calls for advice quite a bit.  Things will never be the same.  We’ve lost that unique, extremely close bond that we had. It had been just her and me for little while and that created something special.  But now that I think about it, she’s growing up and relationships change.  I pray for her, and she knows it.  In fact, she calls and asks for prayer for friends.  She has seen what the power of prayer can do close up.  For my part, I have turned her over to God.  He is the only one who can change her heart.  In the meantime, all I can do is love her and be here for her when she needs me.

 

No one can choose the path our kids will take.  We can try to force them to accept our lifestyles and beliefs, but that can drive them in the opposite direction.  The best thing we can do as parents and children of Christ is to provide them with real answers based upon reason and facts and exposure to alternative lifestyles and beliefs in the safety of our own homes before being bombarded with those issues as they step into the world.  Doing this is not brainwashing -- it's preparing them for real life in the real world.

[Catwoman]

Teaching children the truth is not brainwashing.

First of all, I don't think anyone is "brainwashing" their children, so I think it's a poor choice of words and automatically brings out negative connotations for most people.

 

But aside from the terminology, what about when people believe in different "truths?"

 

That's one of the reasons why these discussions usually end badly.

 

Even the most tolerant people still have personal, private feelings about religion, and I don't think it's reasonable to presume that one person's "truth" is more valid or accurate than another person's "truth."

 

We can say there's a God, and we can say there's no God, or we can say that there are many gods, or that there is a magical Sparkly Unicorn that rules the universe from right here on this forum. Unfortunately, none of us will know for sure about whether or not we're right until we're dead, so I'm willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

 

Especially the Sparkly Unicorn, because I need to watch my back, just in case. :D

 

I have my own beliefs, but they're just that -- my own beliefs. I don't know if I'm right, and I'm certainly not going to assume that anyone else's personal beliefs are less valid than mine just because they're different.

 

Obviously, you can teach your children whatever you like. I probably wouldn't call it brainwashing unless you went to some serious extremes about it, like never allowing your kids to be in contact with anyone who didn't share your beliefs, or forcing them to pray for several hours a day, or something along those lines, and I'm sure you're not that kind of person.

[albeto.]

Not when there's genuine faith/belief in something.  Having genuine faith or belief in something  should always mean asking yourself, "How does this apply to my every day life and how can I do things that are philosophically consistent?"  In other words, "How do I live so I'm not a hypocrite-saying one thing and doing something that contradicts it?" 

 

I think getting into a discussion about faith when you don't have any yourself is not a great idea.  It's really hard to tell someone with an experience outside your own range of experiences what motivates them.  I wouldn't presume to tell someone who isn't a person of faith or has a different faith than mine how it's working for them, why they do what they do, etc.  How could I possibly know?  I can only ask questions and get them to tell me what they're thinking and doing and why.

 

 

 Having genuine faith or belief is a guide for behavior, a guide for following a particular code of behavior. People who don't qualify under your particular understanding of "genuine faith" also follow a code of behavior. Everyone does. Humans are social creatures, and behavior is inherently inspired by this natural instinct to get along in some way (that way is identified culturally and subjectively, which is why people are not always compatible). This doesn't have anything to do with faith, but biology. Besides, I had the faith you're talking about. I absolutely experienced what I could only explain as a regeneration of the soul. I sincerely believed I was born-again, made into a new creature, a vessel of the living god of the bible. I can relate to the things you're suggesting, I just don't agree that they are attributed to what you suggest - a spirit that animates a body in a new and supernatural way. That's why I disagreed.

 

In any case, nothing has changed with regard to what I'm suggesting. Either a claim is true (humans are social creatures), or it's not. The personal belief of the individual making the claim doesn't lend credibility to the claim. The merits of the credibility of the claim stand or fall apart from any individual. In other words, humans are social creatures who behave according to certain biological and environmental impulses, or they are not/don't. The evidence doesn't lie on the personal religious belief of any individual exploring the details, but in nature itself. I'm suggesting people are social creatures who behave according to certain biological and environmental impulses. Evidence supports this. I'm suggesting this same process is not changed by the acceptance of a particular religious belief, even though the particular religious belief modifies the environmental [social] impulses. If you're suggesting people change according to a supernatural influence, the burden of proof of this claim has yet to be revealed. People who claim to have been supernaturally influenced in this way behave on whole similarly to people who don't. There is substantial data to back this up. Further, this claim can only be supported by using the individual (in this case maybe you) as the reference for What Should Be. The problem with this is that other people who make the same claim identify their own beliefs as reference for What Should Be. 

 

Which really gets us back to brainwashing, doesn't it? If one is irreparably dedicated to an idea that cannot be substantiated with external, objective evidence, do we have reason to believe that idea is realistic? If a person who is dedicated to showing the correlation between the position of the stars in the sky and the events surrounding one's life, and all evidence suggests the one has nothing to do with the other, is it reasonable to conclude astrology is a credible belief to hold? If a person who is dedicated, sincerely dedicated to the idea that one's "soul" lives on from body to body in time, that events that happen to one individual irrevocably affect another, seemingly unrelated individual in another place, culture, and time, can we confidently conclude that reincarnation and karma explain what happens to people? If we talk to the adherent of astrology or karma who feels just as you do - a sincere perception of a "truth" that is exposed in front of us, should we consider them all equally? Can we question that that the astrologer or believer in karma has either successfully conditioned themselves, or has been raised since birth to consider only these ideas as accurate and trustworthy, might have been brainwashed [according to my earlier suggestion that "brainwashing" is like "legalism," it's a descriptive word used to reflect a more intense application of a methodology than the one referenced, one that cannot be justified by the one doing the referencing]?

 

[albeto.]

You did not respond to anything I said (although you did misquote me and respond to the misquote) and I do not know what your line of questioning even means.

 

 

I didn't respond to everything you said. I could, if you wish. My line of questioning is a follow up to methodology of research you explain you'll apply to this question. You suggested you would take the beliefs of religion and science seriously and apply all the possible ways of knowing things.  But religion isn't the only claim to know things. Astrology claims to know things. Numerology claims to know things. Telepathy is a means of knowing things, according to many sincere believers in extra sensory perception. Alien intelligence is another long-standing claim to revealing knowledge and understanding. There are all kinds of claims to know things that are outside the scope of the scientific method. You've chosen to take one - religion. I'm assuming you'll limit your scope to the Christian, or at least Abrahamic religions, but maybe you'll explore the different religions sincerely believed by humanity through the years. I'm asking if you'll seriously apply these other ways that, like divine revelation, claims to know things.