Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children

[Diogenes]

In the post "Christians: aren't you embarrassed and angry?" posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1073778
I wrote:

When they finally "get it" and realize most of them are Christians mainly because of childhood indoctrination and step out of the bondage of fantasy they were taught at an early age, then they are embarrassed or angry or both. ... and it has little to do with the reasons stated in post #1.

This suggests the current topic, 'Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children.'

In support of this proposition I quote from the Southern Nazarene University website,
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm where they claim 85% of Christians have their conversion experience ("are saved") at ages 4 to 14 and only 4% after the age of 30.

Parenthetically I note the human brain does not fully develop until about age 25.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

[JehovahsWitness]

The area that I think is abusive and harmful is when parents teach their children things that are factually incorrect ...

I think I have asked this question before, so I doubt if I will get a response, but can you explain how teaching things that are arguably factually incorrect is "abusive"?




source : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abusive

[benchwarmer]

The area that I think is abusive and harmful is when parents teach their children things that are factually incorrect ...

I think I have asked this question before, so I doubt if I will get a response, but can you explain how teaching things that are arguably factually incorrect is "abusive"?




source : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abusive

I'll respond. In regards to the picture above, I assume you think teaching that Santa is real is not abusive. Well, according to the definition you provided, I feel that it fits into "emotional abuse".

Why do I feel this? You are purposely conditioning your child to believe in a lie. At some point they are going to discover the truth and there will be repercussions at the emotional level. For starters they will probably lose some trust in you that will have to be repaired. They are likely also going to face some verbal abuse / bullying from children who were not lied to or already found out the truth. There will likely also be some sadness that they have been lied to for so long and their treasured character is now just a fraud. If the child has younger siblings, they are now forced into a position of lying as well or ruining the whole thing like it was just ruined for them.

Do I think Santa is the pinnacle of abuse? No, of course not, there are varying degrees. I think some religious teaching/indoctrination is far worse. However, I do think lying about a fake dude that delivers presents and watches your every move to decide if you are getting toys or coal is at some level abusive.

Now, people are going to say "BW, are you saying we should ruin Christmas for children?! No Santa and all the fun that comes with that? You cold so and so!!!"

No, I'm saying it's quite possible to have all the fun and more, just don't lie to your children about reality. If they are old enough to ask whether Santa is coming you can say no, but you are getting a special present from us (your parents) to show how much we love you. If they ask if Santa is real, you can (if you like) say you're not sure, maybe they should investigate the issue and decide for themselves. This can - at least for a short time - avoid them 'spoiling' things for some of their friends. They still get special presents, know their parents love them, and have not been lied to.

One sec.... putting on my asbestos undies for the incoming flames about ruining Christmas.... man, these get tighter every time. I got to stop eating all that chocolate....

[JehovahsWitness]

The area that I think is abusive and harmful is when parents teach their children things that are factually incorrect ...

I think I have asked this question before, so I doubt if I will get a response, but can you explain how teaching things that are arguably factually incorrect is "abusive"?




source : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abusive

I'll respond. In regards to the picture above, I assume you think teaching that Santa is real is not abusive.

We Jehovahs Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas so I have no pony in this race, and I have to agee (at least in part) with you on the ill effects of teaching children lies (even fat jolly ones) but I have to ask which of the criteria above you feel fits definition or abuse ? Yes all lies are an "abuse" of trust but generally we take '"emotional abuse" to mean some definite action as in to taunt the child, withhold affection scream or mentally torture the child in some way... I don't see the ritual of Christmas does any of that. At least not as practiced by most people who are NOT part of an MK Ultra Program.

As for lying, is one lying if one believes something is the truth ?

I also have to question if parents should avoid teaching their children the truth so they never have to stand up for it. I appreciate that we now live in the brave new world of collectivism, but classifying anything that may lead to opposition or bullying (which I presume also includes being intelligent or playing the cello ) as abuse is most questionable.

If they ask if Santa is real, you can (if you like) say you're not sure, maybe they should investigate the issue and decide for themselves.

One can never improve on a lie by doubling down with another. How do you think a small child will feel learning his parents don't know if stranger (who has been watching them all year) is going to invade their home or not? And if you do feel it best of avoid attracting mockery and ridicule , what do you think will happen when your children have to admit to their school friends their parents don't know if Santa is real or not?


The point is I have avoided posting the particularities of parenting skills because it is inflamatory and insulting to imply that religious instruction must include abusive , soul destroying methods, devoid of age appropriate factual analysis. But the principles of good education are universal and if violated can be just as harmful in the hands of a non--theist a theist.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #43]
Teaching lies as truth is always abusive to young minds. Using Santa as an example is a joke. Kids don't really believe in Santa Claus and most parents don't teach that Santa actually exists or comes down chimneys. Most kids know the difference between make believe and reality... unless the parents really believe the lie or teach the lie as actual fact.

This is an example of actual abuse that damages children:

An example of the dismissal of critical thinking on the part of this organization can be found in its teachings. Consider the next example from The Watchtower Nov 15, 2013, paragraph 17 “(3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. (4) Now is the time for any who may be putting their trust in secular education, material things, or human institutions to adjust their thinking. The elders must stand ready to help any who may now be wavering in their faith.” Another example is a song straight from their songbook entitled “Listen, Obey and Be Blessed.” Numerous more citings could be listed to reiterate similar sentiments. All doctrine from the WBTS (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) must be strictly adhered to and all dissent is apostasy and faces extreme consequences. These consequences again put stress on a member which again dissuades critical thinking.

This extreme dismissal of critical thinking is encouraged. Straight from their publications, congregants are instructed that no matter how illogical or unpractical the instruction is that congregants must blindly obey. This kind of indoctrination happens to a child from a young age then the natural progression of this is that critical thinking skills are not developed. People then blindly follow along with what they are taught. Congregants are told that critical thinking can cost them their life, to be a sheep and follow along meekly and this is what children are being daily indoctrinated to believe also.

The severe and systemic flaws in this organisation are contributing to a culture where children’s development is greatly disadvantaged....

https://freedomofmind.com/how-jehovahs- ... -children/

[JehovahsWitness]

... unless the parents really believe the lie or teach the lie as actual fact.

1) abuse is not based on whether given information is factual or not, otherwise we would all be guilty of some kind of "abuse" whether it's miscalculating our shopping bill or telling a stranger on the street the Post Office is on the left over the hill when it is in fact on the right.

2) When it comes to religious beliefs, nobody but God is in a position to declare anything untrue or not. All one can do is state what one does or does not believe. The right of a parent to teach what they believe to be truth holds as true as much for those that believe in God as those that do not.

Hyperbole in this area is not only inflamatory, it contributes to intolerance and calls to curb inalienable rights.




JW

[historia]

It's not about education. It's all about instilling beliefs that conform with those held by the parents. Those beliefs are essentially unsupported opinions and have little to do with conveying factual knowledge and understanding of the world that we expect to convey through general education.

You mean like the belief that all people should have equal moral standing under the law?

That is not uniquely religious.

I agree that many non-religious people living in societies influenced by Christianity have taken on this belief. But that's irrelevant to the question I'm asking here.

You said the problem is "instilling beliefs that conform with those held by the parents." So is it bad for parents to pass on to their kids the belief that all people should have equal moral standing under the law?

[TRANSPONDER]

... unless the parents really believe the lie or teach the lie as actual fact.

1) abuse is not based on whether given information is factual or not, otherwise we would all be guilty of some kind of "abuse" whether it's miscalculating our shopping bill or telling a stranger on the street the Post Office is on the left over the hill when it is in fact on the right.

2) When it comes to religious beliefs, nobody but God is in a position to declare anything untrue or not. All one can do is state what one does or does not believe. The right of a parent to teach what they believe to be truth holds as true as much for those that believe in God as those that do not.

Hyperbole in this area is not only inflamatory, it contributes to intolerance and calls to curb inalienable rights.




JW

Since you accept that 'abuse' applies in misinforming people whether children or adults, and it seems accepting that it is wrong to do so, then the principle is established - we should not give people misinformation. Aside 'white lies' where we know that some people want to hear only what they want to hear, not what they should be told.

But relating to children, we have an ethical consensus that children are more vulnerable. It is considered charming to tell them fairy stories - especially the Christmas ones. It is considered ok, as they will grow out of Santa and the adults will come clean about it. But we never do come clean about the Nativity. Because the adults are being lied to as well. Obviously what's at issue here is what is a tall tale and what is factually reliable. And in respect of the Bible that's why we have these debates. If it is, on evidence, a pack of lies, it is 'abuse' to teach it to adults as true, never mind to children. If it is true, let those who believe it demonstrate it on the evidence. Not Faith or messages from God or interpreting the text to say what they want rather than what it actually says. But on the evidence. Some evidence being historical, but I reckon more usefully from the text itself.

[JehovahsWitness]

1) abuse is not based on whether given information is factual or not ....

Since you accept that 'abuse' applies in misinforming people

That is the exact opposite of the point I made.



JW

[benchwarmer]

We Jehovahs Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas so I have no pony in this race, and I have to agee (at least in part) with you on the ill effects of teaching children lies (even fat jolly ones) but I have to ask which of the criteria above you feel fits definition or abuse ?

I already answered this. The emotional side. It's right there in the definition you posted. I then gave my reasoning whether you agree with it or not.

Yes all lies are an "abuse" of trust but generally we take '"emotional abuse" to mean some definite action as in to taunt the child, withhold affection scream or mentally torture the child in some way... I don't see the ritual of Christmas does any of that. At least not as practiced by most people who are NOT part of an MK Ultra Program.

Well, that's your opinion. I already explained where the emotional abuse comes from. There are many levels to abuse and I already clearly stated I don't think the Santa lie is the worst. Yet, it still fits.

If they ask if Santa is real, you can (if you like) say you're not sure, maybe they should investigate the issue and decide for themselves.

One can never improve on a lie by doubling down with another. How do you think a small child will feel learning his parents don't know if stranger (who has been watching them all year) is going to invade their home or not?

I suggest rereading the line before the one you quoted and snipped away. i.e. Santa's not coming to our home. The question of whether he is real or not is the same as any god concept. He cannot be disproven (unless you have some fancy new way of doing that, then please share). The fact that people impersonate Santa and pretend he delivers gifts to kids does not preclude his actual existence. I suggested the child should do their own investigation. Same with any god concept they hear about.

Now, of course I don't believe Santa exists, but I don't know he doesn't. Just like Jehovah, Vishnu, Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. I don't believe in any of them either, but I won't claim they don't exist.

And if you do feel it best of avoid attracting mockery and ridicule , what do you think will happen when your children have to admit to their school friends their parents don't know if Santa is real or not?

My child would not have to admit that. The child would tell his/her friends that Santa does not visit their home, but whether he actually exists or not is an open question. Do the other children know for sure one way or the other? Verifiable evidence?

In fact, JW please provide verifiable evidence that Santa does not exist. I guess if you can't that means you think he does? That seems to be a popular tactic in some apologetic circles anyways.

[TRANSPONDER]

1) abuse is not based on whether given information is factual or not ....

Since you accept that 'abuse' applies in misinforming people

That is the exact opposite of the point I made.



JW

I don't think so, though you may have been trying to or think that you did.

Yopum posted@

... unless the parents really believe the lie or teach the lie as actual fact.

1) abuse is not based on whether given information is factual or not, otherwise we would all be guilty of some kind of "abuse" whether it's miscalculating our shopping bill or telling a stranger on the street the Post Office is on the left over the hill when it is in fact on the right.

2) When it comes to religious beliefs, nobody but God is in a position to declare anything untrue or not. All one can do is state what one does or does not believe. The right of a parent to teach what they believe to be truth holds as true as much for those that believe in God as those that do not.

Hyperbole in this area is not only inflamatory, it contributes to intolerance and calls to curb inalienable rights.




JW

Now you were trying the good old semantic fiddling as to whether 'abuse' is telling people misinformation or not. I might concede that 'abuse' is not the correct term, but that is NOT the argument. It is whether it is ok to tell children misinformation, and by your own analogy with misleading adults it is, whether you say it is 'abuse' or not. It is wrong.

Which was my point (as I recall) about teaching kids that Santa is real. Ok it may not matter if they stop believing it by age 8. I'm not inclined to do it myself but the harm isn't permanent. However (as I said) the Nativity playlet is peddled as true even to adults and this to me is 'abuse' never mind to kids.
Your point above is debunked and it comes down to those who try to show that it is true. I can demonstrate that on all reason and evidence, it isn't and nor is the rest of the Jesus -story. And that's what these debates are actually about.