[Sarah Armstrong]

Yeah I agree with you. I think a lot of people are very convinced about their correctness regarding religion, and so it seems only right to indoctrinate them (really what good parent would knowingly send their child to hell?).

Personally I think it's better to let your child explore and find out what works for them, but I'm more of a hippie than an expert in parenting.

[SinncmxM]

Any view of the parents will be 'indoctrinated' to the kids. Religious views, sociological views, environmental views, etc.

If a parent is 'tolerant' and believes that all ways lead to the truth, then that view will be 'indoctrinated' as well. And the "Everything is true" view is as limited as the "Only this is true" view. Because if 'everything' is true, then someone who says that only his view is true is not right.

Anyway, therefor it's good that all parents can teach their children what they think that's best. It's worse if people try to teach other children their own truth, through governamental ways or something. Thus so called liberals who want to stop religious parents to influence their children are just saying that their children need to adopt their liberal views.

There's a difference between culture and religion, btw. Most teenagers will decide if they'll adopt the religion of their parents. The culture is mostly adopted without any doubt. Religion is culture for many groups. Many people follow their religion because it's a part of their culture. And their culture ofently wants to fight with other cultures.

but if you ask them for the core of their religion, then they do not know much about their religion.

But there are also religious people who really are into their religion. It mostl was their decision, based on ratio and facts, combined with emotion. (fortunately).

I do not agree with you that religious parents do not use evidence to indoctrinate their children. Maybe some do, but I have never been indoctrinated in any way. There was also reason and discussion.

You have a pre-set view on religion, mostly because you have been raised self in a certain cultural-religious way, or because you know people who have been.

[23tommy]

I'm with CyberShy in that it could be rationally argued that any teaching of any sort could be viewed as indoctrination so far as kids begin life trusting adults. Regardless, viewing religion as merely the teaching of lovely little stories writen on ultra thin paper with some nifty little organ music or chanting in the background as some distinguished looking dude tells you the same thing over and over until you believe it is a very sad view of religion, however this is sadly sometimes the case.

Religion is foremost a philosophy (based on faith) that appeals to the rationale of human nature at a very primal psycological level. It is something that has always been sought after by our species, ever since Socrates, Plato, and Aristatol though religion wasn't what they called it. Mystics and Theologians have carried the burden of proof for centuries, many of the arguments couldn't be covered in one thread on the subject.

However, to awnser your question about where the rationale is in religion. Why people would freely choose to believe despite all of science and practical/physical world saying otherwise? Emotional stability. There is no metric that can define it, and there is no test that can prove it, but there is no denying it when it is lost, no question that it isn't there when it is gone. Man can endure great sufferings when they know that there is a end to it. Religion tells you, reminds you, assures you that there is an end. Not only that there is an end, but that if you live as they define justly, that it will be worth it.

There is a deep desire within all of us that makes us need to feel important, to have self worth. Religion pulls on that need, feeds it, and allows us to persever, move forward, be loved when know one else loves us. In some cases it goes too far, in some cases it indoctrinates people, but that was not it's intent, no more than the sun means to burn as well as to heal.

[trettegeani]

Japher, dude, this thread isn't about afterlife or why people like religions. I'm not an atheist.

It was about what you do with the kids and how do you justify it.

[Sadsidioribre]

I gave few examples already. I'm not apologizing anyone either, but at least my question as recieved 0 arguments besides the one that says one should follow their own moral compass. But I do see godwin attempts here, a few of them, they just won't stand. Even a teapot one, wow.

If you can't make a distinction here, this can all be justified with the only argument, moral compass. That's why I said Hitler Jugend. Many parents must have been happy about it, a great chance for a kid.

Basically you can't justify it because there is no way you ever could. So you take all kinds of comparative issues that really are aimed to keep debate 'at war' instead of admitting you have no arguments, and that's why all the 'how do you justify music'. Religion != Music. Or do you mean why woudl you teach them to a kid, again, you have a problematic argument here, and I can continue your list, why would you not teach your kid Satanism, why would you not show hardcore porn to your child?

These aren't arguments, none of these are. You're going to make a mistake if you are trying to NOW distinct porno and math, I'm saying this never was an argument and unless you can show it actually is, and not just a relative, very extreme position, then we can look at it again but before that, this thread is about giving _real_ arguments justifying indoctrinating kids into religion, because if they aren't, chances are they won't pick it up by themselves anyway. And that's the "problems with religions" part.

[eocavrWM]

If you want to have a real argument, why don't you start by not using scare-words like "indoctrinate?" That's kind of like holding a fair and reasonable discussion with liberals to determine "why they want the terrorists to win."

I honestly don't see what the problem is here. As has been said by others here, all kinds of knowledge can be passed on from parent to child. We also "indoctrinate" children to say please and thank you, to brush their teeth, and to refrain from picking their noses. If we did not tell them to do such things, they would probably not learn to do them by themselves...and that's problematic. What are you trying to get at, Pekka?

[Dreqsqse]

Elok, That's because it is exactly the right term to use in this case, I don't know if there would be more perfect situation.

The rest of your post was already handled earlier, so I won't be addressing your questions until you make new stuff up.

[gedsiz]

Dude, I'm asking what the hell your argument is. You're not making any sense to me. Why not teach people religion only after they've grown up? Well, it could be that we're trying to brainwash our children...or it could be that we don't want our kids to be ignorant for the first twenty or so years of their lives. They learn as they grow, that's sort of what growing's all about. This is all pretty "duh" to me.

[MizzDaizzy]

CyberShy, surely I'm not talking about Christianity but all religions so... but it doesn't matter, you can talk from Christian point of view so no problem here.

Not sure which ones were not part of debate so I don't know whcih to comment on, but I'd be rejecting about 75% of what you just said . But not everything.

[dremucha]

"Dude, I'm asking what the hell your argument is. You're not making any sense to me. Why not teach people religion only after they've grown up? Well, it could be that we're trying to brainwash our children...or it could be that we don't want our kids to be ignorant for the first twenty or so years of their lives. They learn as they grow, that's sort of what growing's all about. This is all pretty "duh" to me."

Oh ****, you might be the most ignorant person I've come to see here. Here's my arrogance part, I won't ignore you, I just don't care what you say from this point on. Ta-ta.
x infinity.

[MYMcvBgl]

Originally posted by Pekka
CyberShy, surely I'm not talking about Christianity but all religions so... but it doesn't matter, you can talk from Christian point of view so no problem here.

Not sure which ones were not part of debate so I don't know whcih to comment on, but I'd be rejecting about 75% of what you just said . But not everything. Well, to be honest, I think that I agree with you for 75% as well if you talk about religion.

Religions are most of the time just a part of culture. And yes, that also counts for many christians.
But I think that in general the christian faith is not a religion in that way. (eventhough many people experience is that way)

I wouldn't be a christian if I wouldn't have believed that obviously
But like Karl Barth already said, religion is a human invention and it won't bring us to God.

Only Gods revelation can bring us to him. And I believe that christianity teaches Gods revelation. And yes, we twist his revelation with much religion as well, unfortunately

I always try to split the human religion from the divine revelation. I'm unable to do it though But I won't accept that anytime.

[foI3fKWv]

I think the only thing a child would take away from religion is the social construct that is generated from the religion, thus, moral values. Kids do not think about consequences, the future, or really anything other than what they are doing now. Thus, they have the inability to rationalize the true grasp of religion, worship, or prayer. Religion, to a child, is nothing more than a guideline on how to behave so as not to face the wrath of mom and dad, that and a couple of good stories.

[wbeachcomber]

"Laugh all you want, you're still utterly illucid. You're just generating a stream of disjointed statements with no argument at their core, and it's frustrating. Are you this obtuse in Finnish too, or do you just not know how to express yourself in English? Either way, quit raping my language."

[hitaEtela]

Ok. I won't call you Lori. But I thought you were gay. Not that I'd then have to call you Lori, but I thought you wouldn't mind .

[RagonaCon]

My opinion is that you don't need to promote a religion. Why would you need to promote a good thing?

Promoting a good thing is good.
Shoving good things through people's throat is a bad thing.

Jesus himself already teached us that we shouldn't continue to try to convince people who heared about christianity, but denied it. I'm sorry that we, christians keep on doing it nevertheless. That's because we're stupid people as well

But promoting a good thing, I think that I would be a horrific person if I would know about something good but wouldn't tell you about it. Even if all the good I believe in is stupid and made up, if I believe it, then I should at least tell you about it.

But if you don't wanna hear about it, I should shut up.
And I should certainly not force my morals through your troath. But once again, that's very in the line of Christ. But we christians are oftenly far from the line of Christ

[KacypeJeope]

But we christians are oftenly far from the line of Christ I'm always amazed at the number of those who are not devout, yet force themself to church every Sunday, or when ever the fancy strikes them. It was those hypocrits and condemers that chased me out of the church some 16 years ago.

Today, however, I look forward to church, and go several times a week if my life permits. I read the bible every day and apply the principles to my life. God showed his grace to me about a year ago, I was offered help, I took it, and I am now using the gifts he gave me to a greater extent which only makes God happy but makes me happy.

Religion is personal and intimate. For me to shove it down anyone's throat would be for me to deny religion in it's true form to that person. I can only open the door, show the way, but it is for that person to do the work. Life is not easy, worshiping God doesn't make it any easier, it just makes it bearable.

[HartOvara]

Originally posted by Pekka
My opinion is that you don't need to promote a religion. Why would you need to promote a good thing? You usually don't promote things that are ultimately very good, because there's just no need. Let's say I knew about a huge party. It would be at some crazy time, at some crazy place, which wouldn't make any sense for a party. Now this party would definitely be a good thing. So I shouldn't promote it, you will find it on your own, right?

JM

[halfstreet]

How so?

JM

[Effopsytupt]

I'm not going to waste my time explaining why something so obvious is so obvious.

[Derrida]

Elok, stop being disrespectful and go somewhere else with your crying. You're not wanted here. Even though I might lash a bit when JM says something, it's still different, since he is coming in with his own terms and is being a good guy about it. You I just don't simply like, so you're wasting your time talking to me, and the reason is that you are being disrespectful when it's not necessary.

So come correct or don't come at all.