|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2011 22:47:27 GMT -5
Yoyti, I agree with you completely. And you too, Killix. If a child at any age decides for any reason that a religion is uncomfortable for them, they should not be forced to follow it. Teow, I am truly sorry about your situation and just between you and me, I would classify that as emotional child abuse, which to my knowledge is illegal.
Now, for all of you who are Christian to the core, here's how I see it: To me, if your kid has to fake belief in Jesus to please you and/or out of some kind of fear, then that's no more Christian than being atheist or following a different religion. And I think (if all the Bible says is true) that God really doesn't want anyone to be tortured into accepting Jesus, because like I said before, anyone who shows compassion automatically accepted him already because he preached the idea.
Of course, I don't believe in a lot of the Bible (I wouldn't know what's in there that reflects me, I've never read it), but basically, the above would be my POV if I did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jul 19, 2011 22:59:04 GMT -5
Generally, if you're teaching a child that X religion or ideology is correct, you're teaching them that all other religions are wrong and that they live in a world of people who are going to be punished in some way (e.g. hell, an undesirable reincarnation, some kind of karmaic balance) if they're not "saved". I know that some religions aren't like that, but in general, a religion that doesn't look for converts is one that doesn't last very long. If you teach a child to be part of a religion, you're telling them to take a side in an argument that you care passionately about, but they might not. That's the "battle" I'm referring to. Sure, it's not exactly a pleasant notion. That not only are some people wrong in their belief system, but that it's going to cause them an immense amount of suffering once they die. But it's what I believe. Like the beginning of this topic, it doesn't do a child any good to lie about all the bad parts in life, so the same should apply to the afterlife. And sure, you're volunteering your child for a "battle" they might not want to be engaged in. But so be it. I understand you don't believe in Hell, so you consider it worse to subject a child to an ideological battle. But for someone who believes that it's quite real, an ideological battle is a pittance to pay. Now, for all of you who are Christian to the core, here's how I see it: To me, if your kid has to fake belief in Jesus to please you and/or out of some kind of fear, then that's no more Christian than being atheist or following a different religion. And I think (if all the Bible says is true) that God really doesn't want anyone to be tortured into accepting Jesus, because like I said before, anyone who shows compassion automatically accepted him already because he preached the idea. For one, Sae. That's all nice and good what you think about the Bible and Jesus, having never read it. But that's not Christianity. XDDD That's not how it works. So you can't just say, "Oh, it's okay. Understanding compassion totally counts as being saved." No, it doesn't count. XDDD And yes, I did say that you can't force someone to accept Christ as their savior. But I wouldn't just let the point go. I would continue to try and convert my child if they had a differing opinion. It wouldn't necessarily be making them go to church, or forcing them to say prayers. But I would still be actively pursuing their salvation, in whatever action I deem it necessary to take. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2011 0:21:53 GMT -5
And yes, I did say that you can't force someone to accept Christ as their savior. But I wouldn't just let the point go. I would continue to try and convert my child if they had a differing opinion. It wouldn't necessarily be making them go to church, or forcing them to say prayers. But I would still be actively pursuing their salvation, in whatever action I deem it necessary to take. I would argue that that constitutes force. Or at least the way you've phrased it here, it sounds like you would go quite far in your quest to convert, and that can be quite destructive. More people are turned away from Christianity by pushy Christians than come to faith because of them. I know how it feels to be afraid for someone and to want to do all in your power to save them, but in the end they have to want to be saved. If they fight against it, you're better off letting them go and think things through for themselves. I reckon the best we can do is teach and live by example and the rest is their choice. Now, for all of you who are Christian to the core, here's how I see it: To me, if your kid has to fake belief in Jesus to please you and/or out of some kind of fear, then that's no more Christian than being atheist or following a different religion. And I think (if all the Bible says is true) that God really doesn't want anyone to be tortured into accepting Jesus, because like I said before, anyone who shows compassion automatically accepted him already because he preached the idea. If you want to know something about a religion, don't assume, but ask those who believe. And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."- Luke 9:23-27 (ESV) There's a lot packed into that paragraph, but it outlines pretty nicely what it takes to accept Christ - to take up one's proverbial "cross" and follow him. Following him doesn't just mean being nice to people; anyone can do that. It means having a conviction that Christ died and rose again and that He will return to put everything right in this world, and that includes humans in our rebellion against God. Sin is not doing bad things, those are just the symptoms of the real disease, which is rebellion. We've rejected God and refused to follow His ways. Jesus spends a lot of time talking about people who are good, but not His people because they haven't chosen to follow. I realize some of this won't make sense, but there it is. Following Christ means setting aside your own wants and desires and relying on His guidance and direction. BUT! This isn't the place to debate religion, no. xD So shall we leave it here? ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on Jul 20, 2011 1:55:59 GMT -5
BUT! This isn't the place to debate religion, no. xD So shall we leave it here? ^^ And let you have the last word? No! D8< I'm kidding. I'm not actually angry. But I have to say, I felt pretty deeply troubled by some of the things you and Komori were saying, so can I just respond to them? I'll try not to get too off-topic. I did say that you can't force someone to accept Christ as their savior. But I wouldn't just let the point go. I would continue to try and convert my child if they had a differing opinion. It wouldn't necessarily be making them go to church, or forcing them to say prayers. But I would still be actively pursuing their salvation, in whatever action I deem it necessary to take. the way you've phrased it here, it sounds like you would go quite far in your quest to convert, and that can be quite destructive. More people are turned away from Christianity by pushy Christians than come to faith because of them. I know how it feels to be afraid for someone and to want to do all in your power to save them, but in the end they have to want to be saved. If they fight against it, you're better off letting them go and think things through for themselves. I reckon the best we can do is teach and live by example and the rest is their choice. The words "pushy" and "quite destructive" don't even begin to capture the amount of damage that can be caused when you try too hard to convert someone, even (and especially!) someone you care about. Does the word "colonization" sound familiar to you? When European nations took violent control of territories in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean, they did so partly because they saw themselves as parental figures, trying to save their fellow humans whom they saw as naive and in need of enlightenment. It wasn't simple pillage and plunder. It was partly altruistic, disturbing as that sounds. Here are some of the things that various nineteenth-century European intellectuals said, which would now be considered racist: Georg Wilhelm Hegel: Houston Stewart Chamberlain: Rudyard Kipling: There are people in the world who still remember, whether through first-hand experience or through the experience of their parents and grandparents, the horrible crimes committed during these times. Ngugi wa Thiong'o, Kenyan writer, recalling how he was treated at an English missionary school: Frank Chin, Chinese writer, recalling the experiences of his uncle in San Francisco's Chinatown: I think that if there really is a God who loves all the people he created, he wouldn't approve of this kind of abuse. And he most certainly wouldn't doom someone like Ngugi to eternal suffering just because Ngugi, understandably, chose not to become Christian. There's a reason why most developed nations now have freedom of religion. Because the alternative is war, is violence, is heartbreak. Ending with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi: |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 20, 2011 2:25:50 GMT -5
Why should a Hindu (indeed, anyone who is unfamiliar, from any part of the world) be deprived of a chance to meet our God? If we only preached God's words to ourselves, we would be acting grossly discriminatory in not allowing anyone else a chance to experience the faith that we consider true and real.
I certainly do not approve of the way that those missionaries have acted in your post, yoyote. The part about the Chinese black minstrels sounds especially disturbing, even freakish and exploitative.
But abuse is not an essential element of conversion. Heck, that is downright hostile to allowing someone to make a rational and informed decision to follow Jesus.
Leading soomeone to conversion is leading someone to a point where they can choose, "yes, I want to know more about God personally, for my own good and for the good of others and to make this God happy", or "no, I've made my informed decision and I don't want this." It is their decision to make, and no one can make it for them. But they can't make that decision at all if they don't even get the chance.
I have known and met several missionaries who are the polar opposite of the missionaries mentioned in the above post. This couple were kind-hearted, respectful and above all, loving. They went to Thailand to help put children who otherwise would not get a primary education into schools, so they can have a chance at life. The couple also preached the gospel to the children and their mothers, and whatever family they had, and a very great number of those families and children have welcomed Christianity into their lives. There has been a huge swell of gratitude from the people in that poor Thai community, not just for building the school but also of informing them of Jesus whom they wouldn't know about if it weren't for this couple.
So I don't buy that conversion=destruction.
It's not only Christians who will like Christianity. And it's not only white people who can benefit from it. Christianity is for everyone to enjoy. To say that such and such a people who have such and such a religion should be restricted from having a chance to enjoy Christianity even if they might actually want it, would be discriminatory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Jul 20, 2011 2:47:51 GMT -5
I think this thread is starting to veer off-topic. Perhaps the current discussion concerning religion would be better in a new thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jul 20, 2011 7:18:06 GMT -5
I think this thread is starting to veer off-topic. Perhaps the current discussion concerning religion would be better in a new thread. Aye. And tread carefully with it, there appears to be some fires crackling there. |
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Jul 20, 2011 9:02:43 GMT -5
The thing with religion is, it's one of the most heated discussion topics there can ever be (although our forumers are usually good at keeping things civil) but also the easiest example in this particular debate because otherwise things get very abstract. Admittedly, I love abstract =D I guess the only thing we can really do is make sure that young people have access to other, less biased sources of information such as the media. I'm in a university that's renowned for its journalism school, and while I'm not majoring in journalism myself, I've come to understand that the professional code of ethics in journalism is based largely on objectivity, presenting information from multiple perspectives so that readers are free to form their own opinions. I know quite a number of people - including myself to some extent - who have formed beliefs independent of what they were taught in childhood, and while this process was definitely not an easy one, having access to external sources of information helped. So, from a pragmatic standpoint, I'm for maintaining standards of objectivity in the media to limit the impact that parents' beliefs have on their children. Hm, all agreed. Which kinda leads me to wonder... do we actually have what could be called independent selves? Because I get the feeling that if you take the same baby and raise it in a vegetarian atheist family in Mexico, or in a conservative middle-class family in Sweden, or in a rich yet fractured family in Canada, or even in a similar rich fractured family in Canada right down the street but with the kid going to another school... then I have trouble seeing what Nim said back there about kids being born with 50% genetic traits and 50% upbringing. To my understanding, that same kid would turn out radically different depending on which people he meets, which friends he interacts with, which sort of media he runs into at any given time, et cetera. Basically, upbringing would shape just about most of his awareness and personality. Considering how much of our selves get shaped by the outside world, I'd rather like to know which part of our personality can be pinned down as us having been born with it. ...or can that question even be answered? >> |
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Jul 20, 2011 9:24:10 GMT -5
I'd say how much we can gauge what can affect a person can only go so far. When you have so many variables, not the least of which is the extremely large or extremely limited variety of people a person can interact with throughout his/her life, there's a limit to how much we can predict how a person can turn out. Especially when you consider twins brought up in the same family can turn out drastically different.
You can inherit traits from your parents. Hair colour, genetic diseases, mannerisms, attitude, responses to drugs, what kind of people you find yourself gravitating towards, interests. At the same time, you can be heavily influenced by your background. Religion, attitude towards people, tolerance, how used you are to violence, etc. It doesn't mean you'll turn out the same, mind. People can see a background and use that as an antibase to work from rather than something to model after.
The 50-50 split Nim mentioned doesn't mean it's strictly 50-50. It means that, both genetics and background play a part in how a person turns out, roughly equal, but at the same time, neither one defines a person. You're not what your parents made you, nor are you what your community produced. You're influenced and affected by all that, but at the end of the day, you are who you are.
Well, that's how I see it, more or less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 20, 2011 9:47:28 GMT -5
To answer your question, Huntress, maybe we should consider that siblings raised in the same house can have radically different personalities? Then again, I guess one could form the argument that the parents treat their children differently depending on which one is the cute "little" one and which is the "responsible" elder, and this could feed into their personalities.
My tendency would be to think that yes, a kid could turn out radically different depending on who he/she grows up around, how much or how little attention he/she gets, and so forth. But if you swapped two babies around at birth, would the other child grow up to be completely identical to what the original child would otherwise have been if left in the same situation? I don't think so, but then again it's not like I could really observe both kids growing up in exactly the same placement.
It is a tough question to argue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on Jul 20, 2011 11:57:50 GMT -5
Edit: Put this in a spoiler because I realized it could be inflammatory. Are we still going to start a new thread then, to continue the convo?I certainly do not approve of the way that those missionaries have acted in your post, yoyote. . . . I have known and met several missionaries who are the polar opposite of the missionaries mentioned in the above post. . . . So I don't buy that conversion=destruction. But is the underlying motivation right? "My worldview is right. All other worldviews are wrong. If you don't adopt my worldview, you're going to hell. I'm just trying to save you. No method I use to that end could be worse than the hell you'd be doomed to otherwise"? That's what I was trying to question in Komori's post. I get the feeling that if you take the same baby and raise it in a vegetarian atheist family in Mexico, or in a conservative middle-class family in Sweden, or in a rich yet fractured family in Canada, or even in a similar rich fractured family in Canada right down the street but with the kid going to another school... then I have trouble seeing what Nim said back there about kids being born with 50% genetic traits and 50% upbringing. To my understanding, that same kid would turn out radically different depending on which people he meets, which friends he interacts with, which sort of media he runs into at any given time, et cetera. Basically, upbringing would shape just about most of his awareness and personality. Considering how much of our selves get shaped by the outside world, I'd rather like to know which part of our personality can be pinned down as us having been born with it. What would go against the thought-experiment you just gave, though, would be the experiences of people like Teow, who were brought up a certain way but didn't turn out that way, partly due to personality traits that manifested themselves very early on in life. The 50-50 split Nim mentioned doesn't mean it's strictly 50-50. It means that, both genetics and background play a part in how a person turns out, roughly equal, but at the same time, neither one defines a person. You're not what your parents made you, nor are you what your community produced. You're influenced and affected by all that, but at the end of the day, you are who you are. I'd agree with that. If it were completely genetics and environment, then we'd expect children who grow up under the care of their biological parents to be more similar to their parents than they apparently are. I think that parents play a huge role in teaching their children to speak, walk etc. in their formative years, but after that, it gets more complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nimras on Jul 20, 2011 12:02:55 GMT -5
Guys, please cut with the religion stuff if you're going to be using weasel words and saying not--so-nice-things about things you know the other person believes. That just leads to hurt feelings and people being ornery and grumpy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on Jul 20, 2011 12:38:04 GMT -5
Re: Nature versus Nurture. I suspect genetics is more influential on personality than people realize, and it's easy to accidentally think a behaviour is learned when it's really innate.
Example: One way of finding out about genetics vs. environment in children is to look at studies of identical twins adopted into different homes. There was one study about two adult men, identical twins who were raised in different homes. Both of them were obsessed with cleanliness and order, always being on time for appointments and washing their hands more than most people. When asked why, one of them said his mother was always clean and orderly, and he learned his behaviour from her. The other said that his mother was a slob, and his cleanliness was just a reaction to that. (Neubauer, P.B., & Neubauer, A. (1990). Nature's Thumbprint: The new genetics of personality. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (p. 116).)
|
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jul 20, 2011 13:09:47 GMT -5
"My worldview is right. All other worldviews are wrong. If you don't adopt my worldview, you're going to hell. I'm just trying to save you. No method I use to that end could be worse than the hell you'd be doomed to otherwise"?
That's what I was trying to question in Komori's post.
Well, sort of, yes. That's sort of what I'm saying. There are plenty of places where there are wrong answers. The sky is blue, not red. Birds can fly; turtles can't. And I believe, without any evidence obviously, that following and devoting yourself to Christ is rewarded with an after-lifetime with Him (also known as Heaven), and not accepting Him results in an afterlife without Him (also known as Hell). That's my view. I can't reason it away. I can't just say, "Oh, I don't want people to go to Hell, so if people are good, then they don't go to Hell." I can't do that, that's not what I believe the Bible says.
Say you had a psychic vision that if your friend goes on their vacation to Japan, they will be killed by a ninja. You have no proof, you just have your vision, which you believe will come true. So you will try to do everything in your power to keep your friend from going to Japan. Your friend will think you're nuts, they're just going on a vacation. There's no reason to believe they will be killed by a ninja, only your psychic vision. But does that mean you should just let them go? Shouldn't you try to do whatever it takes to stop him? You might very well be ruining his awesome vacation with your silly visions. But if you're right, and he does get killed by a ninja, wouldn't you hate yourself for being able to stop it, but not?
That's sort of how I see it. I believe I'm right. I have no evidence to prove I'm right. But I would do whatever it took to prevent a bad thing from happening.
Now, I should clarify, I don't believe any sort of forceful pushing is going to convert someone. And I do believe there's a real danger in pressing the point so much that people out-and-out reject your message. I've seen it many a time from my agnostic/atheist friends who came from Christian parents. So no, I personally wouldn't force/threaten/bribe my child to go to church, or pester them to pray.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Jul 20, 2011 14:43:47 GMT -5
Guys, by what particular logic does spoilering offtopic talk make offtopic talk okay? It's not against any forum rules to just go and make a new thread about it instead of continuing to pursue it here. And you might want to requote your posts there because for clean-up purposes, I'd find it quite justified to just delete all offtopic posts here if they keep cropping up, lest they get in the way of the main idea of the thread.
|
|
Furgo 
Michael. 
