How to not brainwash your children with your faith? CC

[albeto.]

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.

 

The methodology is the issue, not the belief itself.

 

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.

 

We watched an interesting show about trying to brainwash people to carry out a real-life Manchurian Candidate scenario (I'll try to find it and link it). Of all the people chosen to participate, the numbers thinned with each subsequent test of susceptibility. Eventually one man was considered susceptible enough to carry out instructions completely against his moral code. He was given a stage gun and did end up trying to assassinate the target (who was, I believe, in on the experiment as well). The guy was visibly shaken up when he found out he did this. I can only imagine what a blow that must have been to his sense of self-identity. 

 

But I don't think the OP or anyone is referring to this kind of brainwashing - the kind that indoctrinates someone to adopt beliefs and behaviors contrary to his or her own preferences. 

 

Instead I think of brainwashing as a methodology by which one's emotions are manipulated in such a way as to purposefully shape a code of conduct or belief system externally. In other words, to take advantage of the emotional vulnerability of the person to shape their beliefs. 

 

Ray Comfort has this story on his facebook page:

 

A pastor was once approached by his six-year-old son who said he wanted to “ask Jesus into his heart.†The father, suspecting that the child lacked the knowledge of sin, told him that he could do so when he was older, then sent him off to bed.

 

A short time later, the boy got out of bed and asked his father if he could give his life to the Savior. The father still wasn’t persuaded of the son’s understanding, so, not wanting the child’s salvation to be spurious, he sent him back to his room.

 

A third time the son returned. This time the father questioned him about whether he had broken any of the Ten Commandments. The young boy didn’t think he had. When asked if he was a liar, the child said he wasn’t. The father thought for a moment, then asked him how many lies he had to tell to be a liar. When it was established that one lie made a person a liar, the child realized he had lied, and broke down in uncontrollable tears. When the father then inquired whether he wanted to “ask Jesus into his heart,†the child cringed and shook his head. He was fearful because now he knew that he had sinned against God.

 

At this point, he could do more than experimentally “ask Jesus into his heart.†He could find a place of godly sorrow, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).

 

Using a child's natural desire to please their caregiver in order to impose an unjustified fear like the "hero" of this story is, in my opinion, a form of brainwashing. The child's emotions are easily manipulated to inspire fear, and then at the lowest point, the brainwasher introduces the one escape from such emotional anxiety. In this case it's belief in Jesus. Jesus Camp exposes the same methodology, but one in a group setting. 

 

Sharing for reference: 

 

 

To MrsJewelsRae I would suggest that if Muslims use this kind of emotional manipulation, I would consider it brainwashing as well. The problem with applying atheism to this analogy is that atheism is by definition the lack of a belief in a god or gods. Any extra beliefs (religion is bad, nature is the only thing that exists, ect) can be brainwashed conceivably I guess, and one would have to manipulate the emotions of another person to this extreme in order to apply the "hope" of believing religion is bad. Unlikely, but plausible I guess. 

[MercyA]

:grouphug:  :grouphug:  :grouphug: , Saddlemomma.

[laundrycrisis]

Back to post #1:

 

Don't ever tell a child they will go to hell or otherwise be separated from God for eternity if they fail to have the correct beliefs.

 

IMO that is the beginning of Christian brainwashing.   Fear. 

 

Some other religions may have their own form of this - I wouldn't know.   I do know this fear is a very real, big thing to many kids who grow up in Christian homes.  

[Catwoman]

Back to post #1:

 

Don't ever tell a child they will go to hell or otherwise be separated from God for eternity if they fail to have the correct beliefs.

 

IMO that is the beginning of Christian brainwashing.

I don't think we can confine that to Christians. I think it would apply to any form of religious extremism.

[Slache]

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

 

This is exactly why I added CC. I don't want a debate and those who don't understand faith but are answering anyway are giving completely irrelevant answers. It's futile.

[Catwoman]

This is exactly why I added CC. I don't want a debate and those who don't understand faith but are answering anyway are giving completely irrelevant answers. It's futile.

Sadly, it always seems to end this way, and the original topic is lost in the shuffle. I hope some of the posts were helpful to you.

[laundrycrisis]

This is exactly why I added CC. I don't want a debate and those who don't understand faith but are answering anyway are giving completely irrelevant answers. It's futile.

 

Reading post #1, I assumed you want to present your faith to your children as a positive choice that you hope will be given serious consideration, but that they won't feel coerced into it, or that there were no other valid choices.  My response was based on very seriously believing that fear (ie, concerns about hell or eternal separation) can never be a positive basis for choosing faith.  I was making an attempt at a very relevant answer. 

[Slache]

Reading post #1, I assumed you want to present your faith to your children as a positive choice that you hope will be given serious consideration, but that they won't feel coerced into it, or that there were no other valid choices.  My response was based on very seriously believing that fear (ie, concerns about hell or eternal separation) can never be a positive basis for choosing faith.  I was making an attempt at a very relevant answer. 

 

I didn't say those who aren't Christian, I said those who don't understand faith. Many people truly do not understand what it means to believe something that can't fully be substantiated by facts. Your answer was relevant and I appreciate it, but many were not and some seemed to be intentionally offensive.

[Jasperstone]

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."

 

 

This! :-D

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.

 

I do think this can be #regional some of the time.  I remember being told that quite clearly as a child/early teens in a fairly heavy Catholic community.

 

[albeto.]

Sadly, it always seems to end this way, and the original topic is lost in the shuffle. I hope some of the posts were helpful to you.

 

I don't agree with you, Cat, and the reason is because there are more people reading and thinking about the contents of this topic than just the OP. In a way, the little bunny trails, whether they're directly related (like what constitutes as brainwashing), or indirectly related (like what does "no salvation outside the church" mean), will undoubtedly benefit someone, even if it's just the two people involved in the exchange. I think this topic has been a goldmine of interesting ideas and topics and facts and opinions that would be missed if responses had to be limited to just the OP. When responses to the OP inspire more questions, there's an opportunity to explore all kinds of ideas, presumptions, beliefs, and consequences thereof. I can't see that as a lamentable thing, especially for a community of educators. 

[pehp]

I haven't read responses, so I'm only responding to the OP.  

 

My children are still quite young.  The way I plan to teach them faith without brainwashing is essentially by discipling them, as Jesus discipled his disciples.  Kindness, relationship and modeling service.  I don't care what I say to them--if they don't see me living it, it's useless.  (And anyhow the book of James nails that down quite nicely!) 

 

How did my mother raise 2 very independent thinkers who are Christians?  My mother didn't hide behind her faith, she used it as a light to inform what she did and how she interacted with the world.  When she taught teenagers Sunday school, she had a variety of guest speakers come in--from a former prostitute to the deejay at the popular music radio station--to talk about issues of culture and Real Life.  She didn't judge people.  She was compassionate. My mom was a probation and parole officer (then a middle school teacher) and a single parent....she was the person all our friends would go to for questions and confessions when their parents seemed too inaccessible.  We felt we could talk to her about nearly everything.  And we usually did. 

 

My mother walked in grace.  She expected us to ask hard questions.  She didn't expect us to come to the same answers she had.  And we never found that our faith was in conflict with an 'old earth' view of the world, either.  When I was in college I studied philosophy and Buddhism and wasn't interested in Christianity. She never condemned me for that, although when I huffily said "I just hate corporate prayer!!!  It's so forced!" on the way home from church one day, she remarked that if I didn't believe it, I shouldn't go to church and pray it.  She was honest and real, but not mean. 

 

My son is already asking hard questions. If I don't know the answer, I tell him I don't know, but I tell him what I suspect is true, and why.  He has asked me what happens after we die.  I honestly have no idea, of course, and I told him that.  But I also told him what I suspect to be true and why I think that is feasible. 

 

There was never ever any element of 'brainwashing' to my childhood (my father, in fact, was atheist until 2001; now he's Christian) and we were always encouraged to THINK (I can still hear my mother saying "God gave you a brain, so be sure to use it!"). I don't fear brainwashing my children b/c I don't buy into a lot of what "American Christian culture" is about--I buy into the life of Jesus Christ.

[Catwoman]

I don't agree with you, Cat, and the reason is because there are more people reading and thinking about the contents of this topic than just the OP. In a way, the little bunny trails, whether they're directly related (like what constitutes as brainwashing), or indirectly related (like what does "no salvation outside the church" mean), will undoubtedly benefit someone, even if it's just the two people involved in the exchange. I think this topic has been a goldmine of interesting ideas and topics and facts and opinions that would be missed if responses had to be limited to just the OP. When responses to the OP inspire more questions, there's an opportunity to explore all kinds of ideas, presumptions, beliefs, and consequences thereof. I can't see that as a lamentable thing, especially for a community of educators.

Well, the important thing here, IMO, is that Slache doesn't agree, and was really hoping to keep the discussion on-topic. She put cc in her title for a reason.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss these topics, but I do think it's nice to respect the OP's wishes when she makes the cc distinction, and perhaps start a spin-off topic to discuss the tangential stuff.

[albeto.]

I didn't say those who aren't Christian, I said those who don't understand faith. Many people truly do not understand what it means to believe something that can't fully be substantiated by facts. Your answer was relevant and I appreciate it, but many were not and some seemed to be intentionally offensive.

 

I think it's rather impossible to peg who "understands" faith. Many people here have experiences to which others are unaware, and ultimately, any claims should stand or fall based on their own merits, not based on the perceived trustworthiness of the person making the claim. For example, if I were to claim the sky is blue because XYZ, that's either true or false based on the facts. If instead I were to offer an opinion about the blueness of the sky, or the value of the color, then that opinion, while maybe uninteresting to the OP, might be of interest to others. 

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but these vague accusation of intentional offense pique my curiosity. If there's been something I've said that you believe to have been intentionally offensive, I would encourage you to ask for clarification, either in the thread or privately in a PM. I can only assure you that my intention is never to offend, and if that's an unintended consequence, I'd like to do what I can to clarify any points that might not have come across as I desire. It helps me to express my ideas clearly, which is my intent. 

[Lady Florida.]

LOL, I just wanted to point out that although I am an atheist, with two atheist children, there was no teaching involved. I did not brainwash my children that there is no God. In fact, my kids have spent plenty of time at a Baptist youth group :)

 

In ds' case, he was six when he said to me he didn't believe in God. I don't believe we'd even had a conversation about atheism at that point.

 

It's a non-thing. You don't spend energy getting kids to believe in a non-thing.

 

 

 

This. Ds was eight when he asked me if God is real. I turned it back to him and asked him what he thought. I didn't give him my opinion or "teach" atheism. I merely let him come to his own conclusions. He is decidedly atheist. In fact I think he's actually higher on the Dawkins Scale than I am.

 

Ds often goes to teen night at the Episcopal church with the girl next door. While they hang out and have fun, there's also always a small amount of preaching. He just sits quietly and respectfully. They know he's an atheist. (And before anyone suggests it - He's not doing this because of a crush or anything. Ds has a girlfriend and the neighbor girl has a boyfriend. In fact her boyfriend and her brother usually go too. They're just friends. He goes for the company and for something to do if he and his girlfriend can't get together.)

 

We spend zero time teaching atheism. What's to teach? Since it's actually a non-belief it just isn't part of our lives. It only becomes an issue when someone religious makes it one, which is actually rare in our everyday lives. We are fortunate to live in an area with a good number of both non-believers, and believers who feel it's no one else's business whether you believe or not.

 

There's a saying that goes something like, "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." I'll go one step further and say that teaching my son atheism would be like teaching him to not collect stamps.

[albeto.]

Well, the important thing here, IMO, is that Slache doesn't agree, and was really hoping to keep the discussion on-topic. She put cc in her title for a reason.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss these topics, but I do think it's nice to respect the OP's wishes when she makes the cc distinction, and perhaps start a spin-off topic to discuss the tangential stuff.

 

If CC refers to an announcement of sorts that those of dissenting opinion are unwelcome, why not take it to a private social group provided by this forum? If a topic is offered in a public forum, it makes sense to expect the public to contribute to the discussion, I think. I interpret CC as a heads-up that the content inside is specifically Christian in content. The idea that bunny trails exist is simply an element that happens to many threads here, and honestly, I think this little side-trail of what should and shouldn't be tolerated is farther off topic than any bunny trail so far. I think keeping discussions to a social group with a particular agenda might be the best solution for this kind of thing. 

[Lady Florida.]

 I interpret CC as a heads-up that the content inside is specifically Christian in content. The idea that bunny trails exist is simply an element that happens to many threads here. I think keeping discussions to a social group with a particular agenda might be the best solution for this kind of thing. 

 

That's how and why the CC label started (a long time ago on the old old boards). It was to give people a heads up so they could just pass it by if they weren't interested. Some people would get annoyed if they went into a thread, spent time reading the posts and responding only to find the OP was coming from a Christian world view. It was never meant to say, "Non-Christians stay out", though over the years some people have tried to turn it into such a thing.

 

Bunny trails happen, no matter what one puts in the title. It's the nature of The Hive.

[MercyA]

Don't ever tell a child they will go to hell or otherwise be separated from God for eternity if they fail to have the correct beliefs.

 

IMO that is the beginning of Christian brainwashing.   Fear. 

 

Some other religions may have their own form of this - I wouldn't know.   I do know this fear is a very real, big thing to many kids who grow up in Christian homes.  

 

I can think of little that will serve my children better than having a healthy fear of God.  "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom..."  

 

I would be remiss in my duty if I neglected to warn my children about hell and the consequences of unbelief.  Jesus spoke specifically, frequently, and bluntly on those topics.

 

And that's all I have to say about that. :001_smile:  

[eternalsummer]

I haven't been here long, but I thought CC was kind of like JAWM, or "not JAWM", or "WWYD" - a way to frame the content of the OP and the thread.

 

Obviously, even if you post a JAWM post, not everyone is going to agree with you, and since you're posting in a public forum, there's no absolute expectation of certain types of behavior.

 

However, for me, CC says (like JAWM says, or WWYD says, or anything): "this is the framework in which I'm posting and in which I'd like to have a discussion, please respect that."

 

For the most part, this is a respectful community (rather too respectful sometimes, imo), so these types of requests make sense to me.

[Lady Florida.]

I haven't been here long, but I thought CC was kind of like JAWM, or "not JAWM", or "WWYD" - a way to frame the content of the OP and the thread.

 

 

 

Those of us who have been here long however, know what CC means and how it got started. Every time this comes up one of us tries to explain the meaning and origin. Obviously people will react to posts in a CC thread based on what they think CC means. If everyone is aware of the history and meaning of the label, it's a lot easier than each of us making up our own meaning for it.

[Lavandula]

I would be remiss in my duty if I neglected to warn my children about hell and the consequences of unbelief.  Jesus spoke specifically, frequently, and bluntly on those topics.

How does one expect their children to make their own decision while simultaneously telling them scary things about what will happen if they don't make the "right" choice? These are children we're talking about.

 

eta: that really wasn't meant to come off as rude, I'm sure you want whats best for your children. It just seems to me that telling children that they'll go to hell and whatever else if they don't believe would come off as kind of threatening. 

[Joker]

I can think of little that will serve my children better than having a healthy fear of God.  "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom..."  

 

I would be remiss in my duty if I neglected to warn my children about hell and the consequences of unbelief.  Jesus spoke specifically, frequently, and bluntly on those topics.

 

And that's all I have to say about that. :001_smile:  

 

Yet it did my dd a great deal of harm and my oldest never wanted to step foot inside of a church again. It can be very damaging. There is something absolutely amazing about seeing that same child choose to be in church and to learn to not fear but only to love God.

[Joker]

I do think this can be #regional some of the time.  I remember being told that quite clearly as a child/early teens in a fairly heavy Catholic community.

 

 

I never heard that Catholics felt that way about other religions but I did hear that Catholics weren't "true" Christians. If it matters, I grew up Baptist and have only joined the Catholic church in the past two years. It probably is regional and it goes both ways. Neither is right.

[DawnM]

Thank you for responding.  

 

However, I don't see anything here that would dissuade me from saying I am indeed Protestant.  

 

There are all sorts of beliefs out there within Protestantism.  If someone says they are Protestant, I don't automatically assume anything about their specific doctrine.  I don't assume they are Reformed, Calvinists, or Wesleyan, or speak in tongues or don't, etc....

 

I assume they adhere to the tenants of the Protestant faith, similar to the Apostle's Creed.

 

I may not (and probably don't) agree with everything they believe about the minor issues.  

 

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."

 

[eternalsummer]

Perhaps the CC term has evolved somewhat on the board?  I dunno.

 

Re: the consequences of not being part of any particular religion; I was not raised with any religion and I am not religious now (though I see the usefulness of religion now and throughout history, and I believe in what you might call Spinoza's god).  My general impression, through I suppose media?  and relatives?  and peers (who were religious)?  was that all varieties of Christian believed, more or less, that if you weren't baptized and/or were not a believer, you were going to hell. 

 

this never concerned me as I didn't believe in (literal, eternal, fire and devil, etc.) hell.  I was aware, I think, that Jews didn't hold the same belief; I never had cause to worry about Muslims one way or another as there were none in my life.

[eternalsummer]

In retrospect, I can see how I was led to believe that about Christians: other kids, being kids, were happy to tell me I was going to hell because I was different, and my non-religious family and some prevailing parts of popular culture/media were happy to tell me Christians held that belief because it made condemning Christianity easier for them, kwim?

[Slache]

Many of the answers I've enjoyed were from people not in a Christian group. I've been other places on the internet where CC meant Christians only, and I assumed that was what it meant here. Like my mother in law says "When you assume you make idiots out of both of us".  :laugh:

[eternalsummer]

Hah, my flute teacher used to say that to assume was to split the word into three parts: ass/u/me.  (She meant that to assume makes an ass out of you and me).

 

[Slache]

Hah, my flute teacher used to say that to assume was to split the word into three parts: ass/u/me.  (She meant that to assume makes an ass out of you and me).

 

I've tried explaining that to her and she just gets really upset. "No, that's not it!"

[laundrycrisis]

How does one expect their children to make their own decision while simultaneously telling them scary things about what will happen if they don't make the "right" choice? These are children we're talking about.

 

eta: that really wasn't meant to come off as rude, I'm sure you want whats best for your children. It just seems to me that telling children that they'll go to hell and whatever else if they don't believe would come off as kind of threatening. 

 

 

ITA.   Thinking this is a good idea while not wanting to "brainwash" them doesn't make any sense.   It's basically saying, well, I don't want to brainwash my children, but I think it's find to scare the crap out of them so they will see God as some kind of soul-capital-punishing mind-police and be literally afraid to ever question your beliefs.  If that's not brainwashing, I guess I don't know what is. 

[laundrycrisis]

Yet it did my dd a great deal of harm and my oldest never wanted to step foot inside of a church again. It can be very damaging. There is something absolutely amazing about seeing that same child choose to be in church and to learn to not fear but only to love God.

 

Yes - faith that is not based on fear feels like an actual choice. 

[eternalsummer]

We tell children all the time about scary things that will happen to them if they don't make the "right" choice - don't run out into the street or you might get hit by a car, don't do needle drugs or you'll end up a junkie, don't have unprotected sex or you'll get an STD/unwanted pregnancy, don't put your hand in the garbage disposal or it might get chopped into bits, etc.

 

The difference is that for me (and I suspect the atheists who are making the above argument), going to hell as a result of unbelief is not a realistic consequence.

 

If you believed wholeheartedly in whatever religious precept, I don't see how telling it as truth to your children would be much different than telling them not to run out in the street on fear of being hit by a car, from the point of view of the believer.

[albeto.]

Many of the answers I've enjoyed were from people not in a Christian group. I've been other places on the internet where CC meant Christians only, and I assumed that was what it meant here. Like my mother in law says "When you assume you make idiots out of both of us".  :laugh:

 

Were the answers irrelevant to your question?

 

You started off with one question (hot do not brainwash your kids with your faith), but you seemed to end up with another question (how to not raise hypocrites). These questions don't require faith to answer. They're relatively simple, logical questions. I think most people probably answered with a genuine desire to lend you a helping hand. We tend to like kids, ours and others, and feel for parents who find something to be a particular struggle. Please don't assume that just because I don't share your faith any more, I am unsympathetic to your quest. 

[Lavandula]

We tell children all the time about scary things that will happen to them if they don't make the "right" choice - don't run out into the street or you might get hit by a car, don't do needle drugs or you'll end up a junkie, don't have unprotected sex or you'll get an STD/unwanted pregnancy, don't put your hand in the garbage disposal or it might get chopped into bits, etc.

 

The difference is that for me (and I suspect the atheists who are making the above argument), going to hell as a result of unbelief is not a realistic consequence.

 

If you believed wholeheartedly in whatever religious precept, I don't see how telling it as truth to your children would be much different than telling them not to run out in the street on fear of being hit by a car, from the point of view of the believer.

For starters, I'm not an atheist.

 

I'm having a hard time writing this out, so forgive me if the following isn't clear. But I believe it's very different than telling them not to run out in the street for fear of being hit by a car. It seemed to me people have been asking and giving advice on how to tell their children about their beliefs and live their lives that way without "forcing" them into it. I don't believe anyone has a problem with their child believing you shouldn't run out into the street. That's pretty universally accepted. Religion is quite different. 

[eternalsummer]

Regarding the fear of hell; it is a legitimate part of the religion/belief that a child or person who does not believe must reject.

 

If you see Christianity as a live hypothesis (that is, as a possibility), and thus hell as a possibility, it's pretty irresponsible to reject the religion without serious consideration; the risk of acceptance in something that turns out not to be true is just being fooled and the risk of rejection is eternal hellfire.

 

But for someone who genuinely does not believe, child or adult, hell is not a consideration, right?  Because it doesn't exist.  How do you brainwash someone with the threat of something that (for them) doesn't exist?

[eternalsummer]

For starters, I'm not an atheist.

 

I'm having a hard time writing this out, so forgive me if the following isn't clear. But I believe it's very different than telling them not to run out in the street for fear of being hit by a car. It seemed to me people have been asking and giving advice on how to tell their children about their beliefs and live their lives that way without "forcing" them into it. I don't believe anyone has a problem with their child believing you shouldn't run out into the street. That's pretty universally accepted. Religion is quite different. There are many different beliefs, and lots of people think theirs are true. I haven't seen 1 person to date say it's fine to run out into the street.

 

I agree that it is different if you are not religious, or if you're not particularly religious, or if your religion dictates some form of conscious choice (that is, gaining acceptance by threat of hell wouldn't save one from hell anyway, so it's pointless), but for someone who sincerely and fully believes the consequences of the rejection of the religion are hell, the same way I believe the consequences of running out in the middle of traffic are death/serious injury, I don't see much difference.

[laundrycrisis]

Regarding the fear of hell; it is a legitimate part of the religion/belief that a child or person who does not believe must reject.

 

If you see Christianity as a live hypothesis (that is, as a possibility), and thus hell as a possibility, it's pretty irresponsible to reject the religion without serious consideration; the risk of acceptance in something that turns out not to be true is just being fooled and the risk of rejection is eternal hellfire.

 

But for someone who genuinely does not believe, child or adult, hell is not a consideration, right?  Because it doesn't exist.  How do you brainwash someone with the threat of something that (for them) doesn't exist?

 

I grew up in Christian churches that did not literally interpret hell or eternal separation.  Those were not part of it.  Nothing was based on fear.  A person can choose this faith without that fear being part of their decision or their beliefs.  

[Lavandula]

But for someone who genuinely does not believe, child or adult, hell is not a consideration, right?  Because it doesn't exist.  How do you brainwash someone with the threat of something that (for them) doesn't exist?

I honestly don't know enough about Christianity to reply to the first part. It just confuses me and I don't want to offend people.

 

To what I quoted: I was referring to when you're raising your children. When they don't necessarily have any firm opinions yet. Sure they can develop them later, regardless of what mom/dad teach them. But when you're a kid and your parent is telling you that you'll go to some bad place and have bad things happen to you if you don't listen to them, I think you'd probably believe it, or try to force yourself to, or feel terrible that you don't, so on...

 

I said nothing of brainwashing, just asked someone a question. I don't wish to get into the debate around that term.

[Lavandula]

I grew up in Christian churches that did not literally interpret hell or eternal separation.  Those were not part of it.  Nothing was based on fear.  A person can choose this faith without that fear being part of their decision or their beliefs.  

Was about to say this next.

[poppy]

I agree that it is different if you are not religious, or if you're not particularly religious, or if your religion dictates some form of conscious choice (that is, gaining acceptance by threat of hell wouldn't save one from hell anyway, so it's pointless), but for someone who sincerely and fully believes the consequences of the rejection of the religion are hell, the same way I believe the consequences of running out in the middle of traffic are death/serious injury, I don't see much difference.

 

Talk about not "understanding faith".

I don't know of any faith that preaches the reason to believe is to avoid hell.

They tell people not to engage in behaviors that will alienate them from the faith which may lead to hell.

But "believe or else fiery pits and damnation?" No.

[Slache]

Were the answers irrelevant to your question?

 

You started off with one question (hot do not brainwash your kids with your faith), but you seemed to end up with another question (how to not raise hypocrites). These questions don't require faith to answer. They're relatively simple, logical questions. I think most people probably answered with a genuine desire to lend you a helping hand. We tend to like kids, ours and others, and feel for parents who find something to be a particular struggle. Please don't assume that just because I don't share your faith any more, I am unsympathetic to your quest. 

 

I see raising hypocrites and brainwashing them into a false faith as the same thing. I want my kids to develop a deep, trusting faith; not simply a mental assent.

[eternalsummer]

Talk about not "understanding faith".

I don't know of any faith that preaches the reason to believe is to avoid hell.

They tell people not to engage in behaviors that will alienate them from the faith which may lead to hell.

But "believe or else fiery pits and damnation?" No.

 

No, that's not what I said.  I said if the belief is a live hypothesis - that is, it is something you can believe, but may or may not commit to.

 

Of course believing because of hell is impossible - if it's a dead hypothesis, something you absolutely don't see as possible (like I'd presume all of us think of say Zeus, the guy in the sky), no threat of something you don't believe in will make you believe in something you don't believe in.

 

William James says it better here: http://educ.jmu.edu/~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html

 

(Henry James's older brother, fwiw)

[8circles]

Thank you for responding.  

 

However, I don't see anything here that would dissuade me from saying I am indeed Protestant.  

 

There are all sorts of beliefs out there within Protestantism.  If someone says they are Protestant, I don't automatically assume anything about their specific doctrine.  I don't assume they are Reformed, Calvinists, or Wesleyan, or speak in tongues or don't, etc....

 

I assume they adhere to the tenants of the Protestant faith, similar to the Apostle's Creed.

 

I may not (and probably don't) agree with everything they believe about the minor issues.  

 

Dawn

Dawn I personally agree with you.  

 

But I think to many people, the term "Protestant" does mean something specific regarding many controversial doctrines.  It has also been used here to indicate uneducated & ignorant about theology/the church.  I can understand not wanting to be called those things.

 

As to people who believe they truly are not Protestant and their branch of Christianity has not come out of the Reformation, I think they should be called how they self-identify.  Regardless of whether I agree with them, it's just disrespectful to call them something they don't think they are. 

[DawnM]

Well true.

I was just a bit surprised because we are Baptist too and consider ourselves Protestant, as does our church.

Dawn

 

 

Dawn I personally agree with you.  

 

But I think to many people, the term "Protestant" does mean something specific regarding many controversial doctrines.  It has also been used here to indicate uneducated & ignorant about theology/the church.  I can understand not wanting to be called those things.

 

As to people who believe they truly are not Protestant and their branch of Christianity has not come out of the Reformation, I think they should be called how they self-identify.  Regardless of whether I agree with them, it's just disrespectful to call them something they don't think they are. 

 

[8circles]

Well true.

I was just a bit surprised because we are Baptist too and consider ourselves Protestant, as does our church.

Dawn

Yeah, I don't know which Baptists consider themselves Protestants and which don't. I've only heard of it here so I don't know how common it is.

[albeto.]

I see raising hypocrites and brainwashing them into a false faith as the same thing. I want my kids to develop a deep, trusting faith; not simply a mental assent.

 

 By definition these are very different concepts. We've been talking about brainwashing. No wonder you feel frustrated! 

 

It sounds like what you want is your kids to embrace a faith that is within your comfort zone. Your kids are young. They listen to and trust you. You might want to be aware that whatever you teach them will be challenged by people and ideas outside your sphere of influence. You can increase your sphere of influence (which might be considered by some to be brainwashing if it crosses their personal comfort zones), or you can work out your own feelings to avoid possible discomfort. But whatever you do, it is really only increasing or decreasing the probability of your kids maintaining your faith. There is no equation that works, but there are things you can do that are more likely to increase your chances of the outcome you'd like. In any case, you might consider the fact that people are rejecting the faith of their parents now more than ever, and there's no sign of that trend reversing. Your kids will be growing up in an environment even less protective of your faith than yours is now. That's not to say it's likely to be less tolerant, but the kinds of things you might take for granted (like expecting a conversation be respectful to your beliefs) they might not experience outside specific, protected communities. 

[Slache]

 By definition these are very different concepts. We've been talking about brainwashing. No wonder you feel frustrated! 

 

It sounds like what you want is your kids to embrace a faith that is within your comfort zone. Your kids are young. They listen to and trust you. You might want to be aware that whatever you teach them will be challenged by people and ideas outside your sphere of influence. You can increase your sphere of influence (which might be considered by some to be brainwashing if it crosses their personal comfort zones), or you can work out your own feelings to avoid possible discomfort. But whatever you do, it is really only increasing or decreasing the probability of your kids maintaining your faith. There is no equation that works, but there are things you can do that are more likely to increase your chances of the outcome you'd like. In any case, you might consider the fact that people are rejecting the faith of their parents now more than ever, and there's no sign of that trend reversing. Your kids will be growing up in an environment even less protective of your faith than yours is now. That's not to say it's likely to be less tolerant, but the kinds of things you might take for granted (like expecting a conversation be respectful to your beliefs) they might not experience outside specific, protected communities. 

 

This is one of the main reasons we're homeschooling. I want my children to be able to "give an answer for the hope that is in them". I want them to understand what people think about our faith and why they disagree. I don't think you can send a child to public school where they learn evolution and then tell them it's not true, nor can you send them to a private school where they only learn creation and think they'll be prepared for real life. They need to be presented with the information. Lots of information. Evolution is obviously only one of many issues, but it's a big one, and most Christians (myself included) are not fully equipped to deal with it.

 

 

ETA: I know many people who "brainwash" their kids into their faith, causing them to be hypocrites until they fall away.

[shanvan]

  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."

I'm curious about the type of church your family attends.  Doesn't seem like it would be easy to find one that follows the same theology.  Sorry, OP, slightly off-topic.  

[Guest Boys4Us]

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!

 

The first account of creation is the summary...the second is the detailed account, not a second creation. Not hard to figure out if you actually study it.

[albeto.]

This is one of the main reasons we're homeschooling. I want my children to be able to "give an answer for the hope that is in them". I want them to understand what people think about our faith and why they disagree. I don't think you can send a child to public school where they learn evolution and then tell them it's not true, nor can you send them to a private school where they only learn creation and think they'll be prepared for real life. They need to be presented with the information. Lots of information. Evolution is obviously only one of many issues, but it's a big one, and most Christians (myself included) are not fully equipped to deal with it.

 

What I'm taking away from this is that you want your kids to be able to defend their faith to those who would ask the hard questions. Is that correct? That's an increasingly difficult task for parents, no doubt. Your kids will be internet savvy without even having to think about it, and so they'll find out how the theory of evolution really works, which contradicts what YEC apologists will explain. They'll learn why the information they are encouraged to present is of less interest to an increasingly secular society, and it won't have to do with "sin" or the devil or anything like that, but with answers to the difficult questions that are more plausible when critically analyzed and logically considered. That's not to say your kids will reject their faith. There's no way for me to know. Or you. Which is why it's a big unsettling, I know. I've been there. 

 

ETA: I know many people who "brainwash" their kids into their faith, causing them to be hypocrites until they fall away.

 

Do you mean "brainwashing" as in learning the "wrong" faith, then they act in ways inconsistent with the bible? You can't avoid that, in my opinion. For the same reason you may find someone else a hypocrite, they find you one. For the same reason you can defend yourself against such an accusation, they can too. That's one of the problems with the religion. Your kids may never figure this out, but if they do, all the apologetics in the world won't help. 

 

In any case, I'm curious as to which posts in this thread you consider to have had the intent to offend. I ask because if you're talking about giving an answer for your hope, you might consider interpreting a reply as less persecutory and more academic. It's hard to give an answer if the conversation makes you uncomfortable, kwim? Maybe you're not uncomfortable and I'm reading you all wrong, but my impression is that you've kind of hid yourself away from this discussion when it veered off the track that made you comfortable, the track that supported your beliefs, and came back out when talk of atheist meanies surfaced. That kind of behavior made me think you're uncomfortable when people don't accept the answer for your hope, and so I wonder if you're hoping to spare your children this discomfort. But like I say, if I'm reading this all wrong, then ignore.  ;-)